If I Were God

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » If I Were God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:44 am
I have a little different perspective that I find much more rational and superior to the majority of theists outlook on their god concepts.

If I created an intelligent being, I would never impose any restrictions or guidelines for it to follow at all.

But why?

Because then I would be able to know that it made it's choices without weighing them according to my existence.

I think for most theists, just the simple fact that they believe in the existence of a god, actually influences their behavior where as they would probably behave in (perhaps) drastic other ways had they not believed.

It almost scares me sometimes when I hear a theist argument that if god did not exist there would be no moral compass for them or anyone else. What this sounds like to me, that they simply have no empathy or sympathy for the next person and if their god notion went away they wouldn't care what they did or how they treated anyone else. And that to me makes them less than a person simply because they can not make reasonable decisions without being influenced by some sort of judge or dictator.

To truly find a remarkable human being, you would not want to get involved in anything they did. You wouldn't want to lay down any sort of details for them to follow or obey. You would want to see how they reason out their behavior with other beings.

I understand that you won't always get a "good" person out of this mentality. But even if I did impose rules onto these beings I created, it does not guarantee that they would be "good" people either. If my purpose was to find the truly "good" people I would not set any guidelines for them to follow and those who managed to become "good" people would truly be "good" people on their own merit.

Conclusion: Setting rules does not make a person good if you threaten them with punishment. Sure some will follow the rule because they don't want to be punished, but then it can be said, that if they are only following the rule to avoid punishment, then they are truly not a "good" person.

There is another aspect to this outlook that I didn't mention at first. But I want to state it because I can see people bringing it up but I didn't want it to be the focus of this discussion.

What to do with those who are "wicked"?

If I just allow these intelligent beings to do what ever they wanted without guidance then you might get some that will want to enslave, destroy, murder, rape, abuse, ect. others. If there are no rules then there is a chance that these things would occur. How do you allow total freedom and still maintain "justice" when there will be "evil"?

To be a just and superior god you would have to allow it. But I really don't want to focus on this issue because I don't want to derail my original argument. However I do have a solution for this "problem" but I'll save it for either a different thread or perhaps a later post within this one.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:03 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;173371 wrote:
I have a little different perspective that I find much more rational and superior to the majority of theists outlook on their god concepts.

If I created an intelligent being, I would never impose any restrictions or guidelines for it to follow at all.

But why?

Because then I would be able to know that it made it's choices without weighing them according to my existence.

I think for most theists, just the simple fact that they believe in the existence of a god, actually influences their behavior where as they would probably behave in (perhaps) drastic other ways had they not believed.

It almost scares me sometimes when I hear a theist argument that if god did not exist there would be no moral compass for them or anyone else. What this sounds like to me, that they simply have no empathy or sympathy for the next person and if their god notion went away they wouldn't care what they did or how they treated anyone else. And that to me makes them less than a person simply because they can not make reasonable decisions without being influenced by some sort of judge or dictator.

To truly find a remarkable human being, you would not want to get involved in anything they did. You wouldn't want to lay down any sort of details for them to follow or obey. You would want to see how they reason out their behavior with other beings.

I understand that you won't always get a "good" person out of this mentality. But even if I did impose rules onto these beings I created, it does not guarantee that they would be "good" people either. If my purpose was to find the truly "good" people I would not set any guidelines for them to follow and those who managed to become "good" people would truly be "good" people on their own merit.

Conclusion: Setting rules does not make a person good if you threaten them with punishment. Sure some will follow the rule because they don't want to be punished, but then it can be said, that if they are only following the rule to avoid punishment, then they are truly not a "good" person.


What makes a good person a good person? Is the way they actually behave or is it how they would behave without any environmental restrictions? How are we to know how they would behave without these restrictions? I personally believe that many people would behave much differently without authoritarian restrictions, and by authoritarian restrictions I'm talking about actual authorities (state, government, parents, etc), not imaginary ones.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:09 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;173371 wrote:
What to do with those who are "wicked"?

If I just allow these intelligent beings to do what ever they wanted without guidance then you might get some that will want to enslave, destroy, murder, rape, abuse, ect. others. If there are no rules then there is a chance that these things would occur. How do you allow total freedom and still maintain "justice" when there will be "evil"?



Sorry, I know you said you didn't want to focus on this part but...

How about, if I stab someone, only I feel the pain and receive the wound. That seems like perfect justice and something a god could come up with?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:12 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;173379 wrote:
What makes a good person a good person? Is the way they actually behave or is it how they would behave without any environmental restrictions? How are we to know how they would behave without these restrictions? I personally believe that many people would behave much differently without authoritarian restrictions, and by authoritarian restrictions I'm talking about actual authorities (state, government, parents, etc), not imaginary ones.


Yeah you are right. In many cases society is controlled savagery. Or we domesticate ourselves through the use of authoritative restrictions. However there are people who do not need these restrictions. Sure their parents instill in them not the rules, but instead the ability to empathize with others. I think mine focused on this much more than through threatening me with punishment or scolding me for doing wrong things. Instead I was presented with a counter argument in the perspective of the person I was mistreating.

It instilled a great lesson and it weighs heavy on me any time I interact with others. Lying, deceiving, manipulating, ect others since I don't like it when others do these things to me so how can I justify it if I were doing it to them? I know there are others who cry and complain when they are victims but they will immediately turn around and do these very same things to others without a care in the world.

In some ways I assume that others think like me or have these same sort of outlooks, but once again I think that is the lesson ingrained in me that I try to treat everyone as if they were in fact me. The thing is my parents were not religious, they are secularists but they are not anti religion. If anything I am probably the most anti religion in my family.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 08:13 AM ----------

Night Ripper;173383 wrote:
Sorry, I know you said you didn't want to focus on this part but...

How about, if I stab someone, only I feel the pain and receive the wound. That seems like perfect justice and something a god could come up with?


This is a great question and I don't want to focus on that right now but I promise I'll get back to it when I present the other aspect of my argument.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:20 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;173371 wrote:
I have a little different perspective that I find much more rational and superior to the majority of theists outlook on their god concepts.

If I created an intelligent being, I would never impose any restrictions or guidelines for it to follow at all.

But why?

Because then I would be able to know that it made it's choices without weighing them according to my existence.

I think for most theists, just the simple fact that they believe in the existence of a god, actually influences their behavior where as they would probably behave in (perhaps) drastic other ways had they not believed.

It almost scares me sometimes when I hear a theist argument that if god did not exist there would be no moral compass for them or anyone else. What this sounds like to me, that they simply have no empathy or sympathy for the next person and if their god notion went away they wouldn't care what they did or how they treated anyone else. And that to me makes them less than a person simply because they can not make reasonable decisions without being influenced by some sort of judge or dictator.

To truly find a remarkable human being, you would not want to get involved in anything they did. You wouldn't want to lay down any sort of details for them to follow or obey. You would want to see how they reason out their behavior with other beings.

I understand that you won't always get a "good" person out of this mentality. But even if I did impose rules onto these beings I created, it does not guarantee that they would be "good" people either. If my purpose was to find the truly "good" people I would not set any guidelines for them to follow and those who managed to become "good" people would truly be "good" people on their own merit.

Conclusion: Setting rules does not make a person good if you threaten them with punishment. Sure some will follow the rule because they don't want to be punished, but then it can be said, that if they are only following the rule to avoid punishment, then they are truly not a "good" person.

There is another aspect to this outlook that I didn't mention at first. But I want to state it because I can see people bringing it up but I didn't want it to be the focus of this discussion.

What to do with those who are "wicked"?

If I just allow these intelligent beings to do what ever they wanted without guidance then you might get some that will want to enslave, destroy, murder, rape, abuse, ect. others. If there are no rules then there is a chance that these things would occur. How do you allow total freedom and still maintain "justice" when there will be "evil"?

To be a just and superior god you would have to allow it. But I really don't want to focus on this issue because I don't want to derail my original argument. However I do have a solution for this "problem" but I'll save it for either a different thread or perhaps a later post within this one.


Hi Krumple,

Again, I agree with you - A good person is not a good person if they are simply being good in order to avoid damnation, or to attain a place in paradise, even.

What about this - A person is good, with no requirement for reward and no fear of the consequences that arise, if they are not?

I, for one (my friends also) am/are not beings that desire anything, nor do we fear anything - and I mean "anything". whether we are good people or not? That is for others to judge.

Thank you Krumple, and journey well, sir.

Mark...
 
cluckk
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:27 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
What to do with those who are "wicked"?

If I just allow these intelligent beings to do what ever they wanted without guidance then you might get some that will want to enslave, destroy, murder, rape, abuse, ect. others. If there are no rules then there is a chance that these things would occur. How do you allow total freedom and still maintain "justice" when there will be "evil"?

To be a just and superior god you would have to allow it. But I really don't want to focus on this issue because I don't want to derail my original argument. However I do have a solution for this "problem" but I'll save it for either a different thread or perhaps a later post within this one.


But an answer to this would be integral to your thesis. To try to exclude it is like the old preacher whose notes said: "Point is weak here so pound pulpit!"
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:40 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;173387 wrote:
Hi Krumple,

Again, I agree with you - A good person is not a good person if they are simply being good in order to avoid damnation, or to attain a place in paradise, even.

What about this - A person is good, with no requirement for reward and no fear of the consequences that arise, if they are not?

I, for one (my friends also) am/are not beings that desire anything, nor do we fear anything - and I mean "anything". whether we are good people or not? That is for others to judge.


It's good to hear you are in good company then. Not everyone has such a "constructive" or "positive" environment. I think my point goes a little further than that though. In some ways, I see religion as creating a hindrance to the progress of "mankind" (don't like that word) or humanity. There are many who do seek for reward and do make sacrifices for those rewards and only heed the "rules" because they want the reward. So although it might seem like a positive aspect to society in general I feel it weakens empathy for others to have those kinds of mindsets.

When I see shows about Africas new policies against homosexuality that are nothing other than genocide laws. "Kill all homosexuals." Is not having any compassion or empathy for humanity at all, so how can these systems be considered moral?

I don't use drugs.
I don't drink alcohol.
I don't smoke cigarettes.
I don't even drink coffee.
I have never purchased sex.
I have never been to a strip club.

All these above things I have never done, yet I think they all should be allowed and legal. I support them even though I have never done them. I think a person who does use them does not make them a bad person, not even in the slightest way. So why don't I do them then?

I don't like vices on my behavior but at the same time I have never felt the need to. Many of them have addicting qualities or self medicating aspects. Since I have never had any problems finding sexual relationships I haven't ever had the need to purchase sex. I don't quite understand the logic behind strip clubs. To me it seems a little strange to pay for some woman to get you all worked up and then empty your wallet for you. Why would I want to put myself through that if I can fulfill myself in a better way?

I don't use any drugs because I like to maintain a clear mind and I feel many of them cloud reasoning and a lot of mistakes happen with a clouded mind. I might be missing out but that is okay, I would rather miss out on some fun than to make a huge "life altering" mistake where I had to suffer because of it. I know that might sound drastic but it's how I analyze it.

As for coffee some of you might be laughing at that, but I have personally seen and conducted testing on the effects of caffeine and coffee on the human anatomy and if you had seen the results of the study you would quit drinking it. I think a majority of artery disease like PAD is caused by coffee to put it simply. But that is not the only problem. Coffee has high amounts of copper in it and high amounts of copper lead to imbalances in the functions of our nervous system.

I am rambling on now, anyways I think you get the point or maybe not.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 08:41 AM ----------

cluckk;173388 wrote:
But an answer to this would be integral to your thesis. To try to exclude it is like the old preacher whose notes said: "Point is weak here so pound pulpit!"


Yeah yeah yeah, I'll get to it, just be patient.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:57 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;173393 wrote:
It's good to hear you are in good company then. Not everyone has such a "constructive" or "positive" environment. I think my point goes a little further than that though. In some ways, I see religion as creating a hindrance to the progress of "mankind" (don't like that word) or humanity. There are many who do seek for reward and do make sacrifices for those rewards and only heed the "rules" because they want the reward. So although it might seem like a positive aspect to society in general I feel it weakens empathy for others to have those kinds of mindsets.

When I see shows about Africas new policies against homosexuality that are nothing other than genocide laws. "Kill all homosexuals." Is not having any compassion or empathy for humanity at all, so how can these systems be considered moral?

I don't use drugs.
I don't drink alcohol.
I don't smoke cigarettes.
I don't even drink coffee.
I have never purchased sex.
I have never been to a strip club.

All these above things I have never done, yet I think they all should be allowed and legal. I support them even though I have never done them. I think a person who does use them does not make them a bad person, not even in the slightest way. So why don't I do them then?

I don't like vices on my behavior but at the same time I have never felt the need to. Many of them have addicting qualities or self medicating aspects. Since I have never had any problems finding sexual relationships I haven't ever had the need to purchase sex. I don't quite understand the logic behind strip clubs. To me it seems a little strange to pay for some woman to get you all worked up and then empty your wallet for you. Why would I want to put myself through that if I can fulfill myself in a better way?

I don't use any drugs because I like to maintain a clear mind and I feel many of them cloud reasoning and a lot of mistakes happen with a clouded mind. I might be missing out but that is okay, I would rather miss out on some fun than to make a huge "life altering" mistake where I had to suffer because of it. I know that might sound drastic but it's how I analyze it.

As for coffee some of you might be laughing at that, but I have personally seen and conducted testing on the effects of caffeine and coffee on the human anatomy and if you had seen the results of the study you would quit drinking it. I think a majority of artery disease like PAD is caused by coffee to put it simply. But that is not the only problem. Coffee has high amounts of copper in it and high amounts of copper lead to imbalances in the functions of our nervous system.

I am rambling on now, anyways I think you get the point or maybe not.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 08:41 AM -----QUOTE]

Hi Krumple,

Abstinence from products that you perceive as counter-productive is, indeed, a good quality. Very open of you too. Well done.

Have a wonderful day, sir.

Mark...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 10:15 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;173393 wrote:
Coffee has high amounts of copper in it and high amounts of copper lead to imbalances in the functions of our nervous system.

I now have a scapegoat for my eccentricities, for I have drank an ocean of coffee in the last ten years.Smile
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 01:36 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173384 wrote:
Yeah you are right. In many cases society is controlled savagery. Or we domesticate ourselves through the use of authoritative restrictions. However there are people who do not need these restrictions. Sure their parents instill in them not the rules, but instead the ability to empathize with others. I think mine focused on this much more than through threatening me with punishment or scolding me for doing wrong things. Instead I was presented with a counter argument in the perspective of the person I was mistreating.

It instilled a great lesson and it weighs heavy on me any time I interact with others. Lying, deceiving, manipulating, ect others since I don't like it when others do these things to me so how can I justify it if I were doing it to them? I know there are others who cry and complain when they are victims but they will immediately turn around and do these very same things to others without a care in the world.

In some ways I assume that others think like me or have these same sort of outlooks, but once again I think that is the lesson ingrained in me that I try to treat everyone as if they were in fact me.The thing is my parents were not religious, they are secularists but they are not anti religion. If anything I am probably the most anti religion in my family.
Emotions are intrinsic to human beings, but emotional responses vary depending on the individual. The same circumstance can make one person smile and another person cry. However, I will admit that for the most part we are all wired the same way albeit slight variations. Another important fact is that human emotions are largely shaped by environmental factors. In fact, seeing that humans are cultural animals, environment seems to play a larger role in hope people choose to behave than their genes. Authoritative restrictions play a huge role in what people do and do not choose to do. I think that whether or not someone is a good person depends on how they behave versus why they behave that way. The fact that some people need strong environmental pressure to behave in a good way just means that they are not intrinsically good (though I'm not sure that anyone is). Don't get me wrong. Behaving in good ways because of environmental regulation is not equivalent to behaving in good ways because of belief in an imaginary authority. I just think that actions speak louder than inclinations.

I think that theists use the moral argument for god because it is a fear tactic. It has a way of keeping a person in a perpetual state of psycho-behavioral childhood. Without the space-daddy they fear that they may get lost in the real world which has no natural moral order.

 
Mister Turnip
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:09 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173371 wrote:
I have a little different perspective that I find much more rational and superior to the majority of theists outlook on their god concepts.

If I created an intelligent being, I would never impose any restrictions or guidelines for it to follow at all.

But why?

Because then I would be able to know that it made it's choices without weighing them according to my existence.

I think for most theists, just the simple fact that they believe in the existence of a god, actually influences their behavior where as they would probably behave in (perhaps) drastic other ways had they not believed.

It almost scares me sometimes when I hear a theist argument that if god did not exist there would be no moral compass for them or anyone else. What this sounds like to me, that they simply have no empathy or sympathy for the next person and if their god notion went away they wouldn't care what they did or how they treated anyone else. And that to me makes them less than a person simply because they can not make reasonable decisions without being influenced by some sort of judge or dictator.

To truly find a remarkable human being, you would not want to get involved in anything they did. You wouldn't want to lay down any sort of details for them to follow or obey. You would want to see how they reason out their behavior with other beings.

I understand that you won't always get a "good" person out of this mentality. But even if I did impose rules onto these beings I created, it does not guarantee that they would be "good" people either. If my purpose was to find the truly "good" people I would not set any guidelines for them to follow and those who managed to become "good" people would truly be "good" people on their own merit.

Conclusion: Setting rules does not make a person good if you threaten them with punishment. Sure some will follow the rule because they don't want to be punished, but then it can be said, that if they are only following the rule to avoid punishment, then they are truly not a "good" person.

There is another aspect to this outlook that I didn't mention at first. But I want to state it because I can see people bringing it up but I didn't want it to be the focus of this discussion.

What to do with those who are "wicked"?

If I just allow these intelligent beings to do what ever they wanted without guidance then you might get some that will want to enslave, destroy, murder, rape, abuse, ect. others. If there are no rules then there is a chance that these things would occur. How do you allow total freedom and still maintain "justice" when there will be "evil"?

To be a just and superior god you would have to allow it. But I really don't want to focus on this issue because I don't want to derail my original argument. However I do have a solution for this "problem" but I'll save it for either a different thread or perhaps a later post within this one.

Just a quick note about your "theists who claim they'd have no moral compass" point above:

A compass doesn't force you to go north, and you can still go north without a compass. But you just can't know where north is. So when (rational) theists say that they'd have no moral compass without God/a god, what they mean is that there'd be no foundation for moral values.

It's the Is-Ought Fallacy: you can't justifiably go from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones.

If there is no Divine Standard, the theists say, then people can still do good things... but "good" simply loses its meaning. "Good as compared to what?" we might ask.

Anyway, just a few initial thoughts on reading your piece.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:19 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip;173477 wrote:
Just a quick note about your "theists who claim they'd have no moral compass" point above:

A compass doesn't force you to go north, and you can still go north without a compass. But you just can't know where north is. So when (rational) theists say that they'd have no moral compass without God/a god, what they mean is that there'd be no foundation for moral values.

It's the Is-Ought Fallacy: you can't justifiably go from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones.

If there is no Divine Standard, the theists say, then people can still do good things... but "good" simply loses its meaning. "Good as compared to what?" we might ask.

Anyway, just a few initial thoughts on reading your piece.


Yes, actually very good point. I tried where ever I mention the word good to quote it because it has such a general definition that I don't always adhere to. I am a little bit alone on the concept that good and evil are often interchangeable. Or there can be occasions when something appears to be good when in fact it is just the opposite. So it really comes down to my personal opinion of what makes a person "good" and that would be; How many problems they create for others in the sense of physical harm. You might be able to include emotional harm but emotions are so loose it is easy to harm someone emotionally even without intending to. And that is the key point, intention.

Accidental harm or harming without actually the motivation to do so is not considered "bad". Of course this has many different levels to it, since harm is also a very broadly defined concept. So the way I like to put it is if there is an option that would cause less "harm" and it is known yet a choice is made which actually causes more "harm" then it is defined at "harmful". Yes I know I used the same word to define itself. It is because some things might seem harmful yet there might not be an alternative method or other solution that would cause less harm.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:47 pm
@Krumple,
Just some general questions, comments, and maybe some things to consider:
Krumple;173371 wrote:
I have a little different perspective that I find much more rational and superior to the majority of theists outlook on their god concepts.

If I created an intelligent being, I would never impose any restrictions or guidelines for it to follow at all.

But why?

Because then I would be able to know that it made it's choices without weighing them according to my existence.
Do you think God exists? Let me answer that, no, you do not. So what makes you think this isn't exactly what He did? I mean you are essentially saying God should exist in theory, but in practice, not exist. The fact that one cannot know with absolute certainty the answer to this questions(if God exists) seems, to me, to comply with your wishes. It seems to me that if God revealed Himself to your satisfaction maybe then you would be compelled to do things which you don't want to do but which are right, thereby making your point about someone only doing what's right because of some rule.

And to reiterate(though before the fact) my point from later in this post, rules and guidelines are not a bad thing in and of themselves and are often there for the benefit of those following them. A lot of places have the rule that one should not run near a pool; sure it's a restriction but it's for the safety of those who may not stop and consider the consequences fully. One person may consider that running around the pool might be dangerous and may lead to a slip while another person may just follow the rule without thinking about it. Some people may only consider it at all because the rule is there while other's may just want to walk without considering if that is a good or bad thing.

Rules are often written by those of authority and who are in a position to know better than ourselves.


Krumple;173371 wrote:
I think for most theists, just the simple fact that they believe in the existence of a god, actually influences their behavior where as they would probably behave in (perhaps) drastic other ways had they not believed.
This is a completely untestable statement therefore while it may be easy to say, it's utter conjecture.


Krumple;173371 wrote:
It almost scares me sometimes when I hear a theist argument that if god did not exist there would be no moral compass for them or anyone else. What this sounds like to me, that they simply have no empathy or sympathy for the next person and if their god notion went away they wouldn't care what they did or how they treated anyone else. And that to me makes them less than a person simply because they can not make reasonable decisions without being influenced by some sort of judge or dictator.
Again, assuming God exists, this point it moot. No human can say how we would or would not act without God. Beyond that, I think Mister Turnip made an excellent point here.


Krumple;173371 wrote:
To truly find a remarkable human being, you would not want to get involved in anything they did. You wouldn't want to lay down any sort of details for them to follow or obey. You would want to see how they reason out their behavior with other beings.

I understand that you won't always get a "good" person out of this mentality. But even if I did impose rules onto these beings I created, it does not guarantee that they would be "good" people either. If my purpose was to find the truly "good" people I would not set any guidelines for them to follow and those who managed to become "good" people would truly be "good" people on their own merit.

Conclusion: Setting rules does not make a person good if you threaten them with punishment. Sure some will follow the rule because they don't want to be punished, but then it can be said, that if they are only following the rule to avoid punishment, then they are truly not a "good" person.
Do you honestly think a society could exist without rules? Rules are not a bad thing and are actually for our own good most of the time. And if rules are good for our social well being wouldn't they be that much more good for our spiritual well being?

If the only reason I never speed is out of fear of getting a ticket, am I not a good driver( in terms of not speeding)?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:40 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;173498 wrote:
Just some general questions, comments, and maybe some things to consider:
Do you think God exists? Let me answer that, no, you do not. So what makes you think this isn't exactly what He did?


If god did do it the way in which I propose here, then religion is all a scam. Because what I am referring to here is that I would not impose any thing that need be done on the behalf of the person. They wouldn't need to accept any commandments, they wouldn't need to accept any savior, they wouldn't be punished for eating any types of food, they wouldn't be punished for not going to a church, or tithing or confessing sins. None of that would be required at all. In fact not even believing in me would be required. Absolutely no requirements at all. Which would mean that all religion is man derived and flawed. I wouldn't force any of them to wear certain clothes or clothes at all for that matter. They wouldn't need to pray or bow or kneel or any thing like that. So are you sure you want to compare my concept to the common theistic belief of god?

Amperage;173498 wrote:

I mean you are essentially saying God should exist in theory, but in practice, not exist. The fact that one cannot know with absolute certainty the answer to this questions(if God exists) seems, to me, to comply with your wishes. It seems to me that if God revealed Himself to your satisfaction maybe then you would be compelled to do things which you don't want to do but which are right, thereby making your point about someone only doing what's right because of some rule.


You misunderstand my comments then. I said that if god were holding damnation over your head to make a choice and because of your choice you either were granted heaven or sent to a hell then for that god to be just it would require that it reveal itself whole and completely without question. For it to remain hidden and still expect for a person to accept some savior that he sent would be an injustice to punish that person for not accepting. I am saying that if I were god I would not impose such a requirement to begin with. It has nothing to do with trying to make them into a better person.

Amperage;173498 wrote:

And to reiterate(though before the fact) my point from later in this post, rules and guidelines are not a bad thing in and of themselves and are often there for the benefit of those following them. A lot of places have the rule that one should not run near a pool; sure it's a restriction but it for the safety of those who may not stop and consider the consequences fully. One person may consider that running around the pool might be dangerous and may lead to a slip while another person may just follow the rule without thinking about it. Some people may only consider it at all because the rule is there while other's may just want to walk without considering if that is a good or bad thing.


Yeah you are right here, however; is "don't run near a pool" the same as, "don't worship other gods? Keep the holy day holy? Do not use my name in vain? Don't eat things that don't chew their cud or have hove feet. Don't eat meat with cheese on top of it." These rules do not prevent anything other than the wrath of the speaker if they are broken. I am saying that imposing these rules actually ruins the person. I would not submit these things as commandments at all. If they happened it would be purely driven by the people themselves and wrong, because I would never suggest that they do these things.

Amperage;173498 wrote:

Rules are often written by those of authority and who are in a position to know better than ourselves.


I don't accept this one bit. Generally a person in authority is trying to impose their power over others so it rarely ever is best.

Amperage;173498 wrote:

This is a completely untestable statement therefore while it may be easy to say, it's utter conjecture.


You are funny. You'll support the theory that a god exists yet when I make a blanket statement your argument is that it is untestable? Are you trying to be a comedian now? What you are doing here is called an ad hoc fallacy.

Amperage;173498 wrote:

Again, assuming God exists, this point it moot. No human can say how we would or would not act without God. Beyond that, I think Mister Turnip made an excellent point here.


That is another ad hoc fallacy argument. When I made this statement it stems from three very common things that I hear from theists. One is, that without the concept of god, there is no basis for knowing right or wrong. Which what tends to follow is, everything goes attitude. No god, no rules, anarchy. It is also a fallacy however this doesn't come from me, it comes from a huge majority of theists. So why aren't you telling them that there is no way to know how a person would act without the concept of god? Second is that I have heard from some thiests who either were atheists or who became athiests but then returned to theism. Their reasoning was that while being an atheist they could not determine what actions were good and which actions were bad. So they went back to the god concept so they could determine what is good and what is bad behavior. Third you can hear from just about every single minister or pastor in their preaching that without god you would be a savage beast without any direction.

Amperage;173498 wrote:

Do you honestly think a society could exist without rules? Rules are not a bad thing and are actually for our own good most of the time. And if rules are good for our social well being wouldn't they be that much more good for our spiritual well being?


See I am not talking about the need for rules, I am saying that rules do not determine the person. There is a clear distinction between what you are saying and what I am saying. I am not saying there should be no rules, I am saying a person who follows the rules because they don't want to be punished for breaking them, but if you were to lift the rule they would commit the act, then they are not truly following the rule to begin with. They are only doing it out of reward or punishment and not for some other reason.

Amperage;173498 wrote:

If the only reason I never speed is out of fear of getting a ticket, am I not a good driver( in terms of not speeding)?


Correct. A "good" driver wouldn't need any speed limit because they would understand that driving too fast can potentially cause harm, so they better not drive too fast. Their own motivation to prevent causing harm is their motivation for not speeding, instead of worrying about getting a ticket. It isn't about punishment it is about empathy, compassion and acknowledging the fact that you co-exist with other beings so why are you not thinking of their well being as well as your own? I think these laws tend to distract people from realizing this fundamental truth. They become like children, when the rule is not present they don't care what they do. And that makes them less of a person in my opinion to behave that way.

A person who needs rules, lacks empathy and compassion.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:10 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173522 wrote:
If god did do it the way in which I propose here, then religion is all a scam. Because what I am referring to here is that I would not impose any thing that need be done on the behalf of the person. They wouldn't need to accept any commandments, they wouldn't need to accept any savior, they wouldn't be punished for eating any types of food, they wouldn't be punished for not going to a church, or tithing or confessing sins. None of that would be required at all. In fact not even believing in me would be required. Absolutely no requirements at all. Which would mean that all religion is man derived and flawed. I wouldn't force any of them to wear certain clothes or clothes at all for that matter. They wouldn't need to pray or bow or kneel or any thing like that. So are you sure you want to compare my concept to the common theistic belief of god?
Without a rule what would your excuse be? "I didn't know I couldn't do that" Rules were set in place for the specific goal of revealing sin and so that no one could claim ignorance. Not only that but the real goal behind a rule is to stimulate relfection where reflection may not naturally occur. Ideally, upon this reflection one will see the reason behind the rule and decide to do what the rule says because they agree with the intent of the rule and not the reward or punishment itself.



Krumple;173522 wrote:
You misunderstand my comments then. I said that if god were holding damnation over your head to make a choice and because of your choice you either were granted heaven or sent to a hell then for that god to be just it would require that it reveal itself whole and completely without question. For it to remain hidden and still expect for a person to accept some savior that he sent would be an injustice to punish that person for not accepting. I am saying that if I were god I would not impose such a requirement to begin with. It has nothing to do with trying to make them into a better person.
It has everything with trying to make them a better person. Without testing in schools even the ''good'' students can get lulled into a false sense of security. A person can think they know something or have a good grasp on something and actually not.



Krumple;173522 wrote:
Yeah you are right here, however; is "don't run near a pool" the same as, "don't worship other gods? Keep the holy day holy? Do not use my name in vain? Don't eat things that don't chew their cud or have hove feet. Don't eat meat with cheese on top of it." These rules do not prevent anything other than the wrath of the speaker if they are broken. I am saying that imposing these rules actually ruins the person. I would not submit these things as commandments at all. If they happened it would be purely driven by the people themselves and wrong, because I would never suggest that they do these things.
Whose to say they aren't? Plus you have to remember that God was taking nomadic people and turning them into a societal people. And also I can really comment on the state of such foods during that time.


Krumple;173522 wrote:
I don't accept this one bit. Generally a person in authority is trying to impose their power over others so it rarely ever is best.
Really, so when you tell your kid not to touch the stove when it's on, your imposing your power of the child?



Krumple;173522 wrote:
You are funny. You'll support the theory that a god exists yet when I make a blanket statement your argument is that it is untestable? Are you trying to be a comedian now? What you are doing here is called an ad hoc fallacy.
I never said the existence of God was testable. I merely made the presupposition that if He does exist, your point is moot. You on the other hand made the statement that about what theists would do in the absence of the presupposed actually existing God.



Krumple;173522 wrote:
That is another ad hoc fallacy argument. When I made this statement it stems from three very common things that I hear from theists. One is, that without the concept of god, there is no basis for knowing right or wrong. Which what tends to follow is, everything goes attitude. No god, no rules, anarchy. It is also a fallacy however this doesn't come from me, it comes from a huge majority of theists. So why aren't you telling them that there is no way to know how a person would act without the concept of god? Second is that I have heard from some thiests who either were atheists or who became athiests but then returned to theism. Their reasoning was that while being an atheist they could not determine what actions were good and which actions were bad. So they went back to the god concept so they could determine what is good and what is bad behavior. Third you can hear from just about every single minister or pastor in their preaching that without god you would be a savage beast without any direction.
As I said, supposing God exists, we can't reasonably determine what anything would be like without Him. That was my main point. I do think God is necessary for an objective grounding of morals, because without a necessary being, or something objective, then all that's left is the subjective-ness of the human perspective.



Krumple;173522 wrote:
See I am not talking about the need for rules, I am saying that rules do not determine the person. There is a clear distinction between what you are saying and what I am saying. I am not saying there should be no rules, I am saying a person who follows the rules because they don't want to be punished for breaking them, but if you were to lift the rule they would commit the act, then they are not truly following the rule to begin with. They are only doing it out of reward or punishment and not for some other reason.
So let me get this straight; a person who follows the rules but does it begrudgingly is not following the rules? That aside, as I said the rules can serve the function of causing reflection upon the rule that may not in other cases take place. This can be a very good thing and while someone may start off following the rule because it's there can easily get to the point that they do it by second nature or because they think it's right or because that becomes their desire or their want to. Thereby bettering that individual in a way they would not have otherwise been bettered.





Krumple;173522 wrote:
Correct. A "good" driver wouldn't need any speed limit because they would understand that driving too fast can potentially cause harm, so they better not drive too fast. Their own motivation to prevent causing harm is their motivation for not speeding, instead of worrying about getting a ticket. It isn't about punishment it is about empathy, compassion and acknowledging the fact that you co-exist with other beings so why are you not thinking of their well being as well as your own? I think these laws tend to distract people from realizing this fundamental truth. They become like children, when the rule is not present they don't care what they do. And that makes them less of a person in my opinion to behave that way.

A person who needs rules, lacks empathy and compassion.
I really won't argue this point any further because I think it is the heart that counts. My only point was that rules can serve the purpose of getting one to consider something they may not naturally be inclined to. If Johnny isn't a naturally empathetic person perhaps the rule will help him ponder the possibility of it being there and then and only then will he understand the real meaning behind the rule; and ultimately he'll start doing it because he wants to and because he knows it's right, not because of the rule itself.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:51 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;173544 wrote:
Without a rule what would your excuse be? "I didn't know I couldn't do that" Rules were set in place for the specific goal of revealing sin and so that no one could claim ignorance.


You still are not getting fully what I am saying. I am saying if I were god there wouldn't be such a thing as sin because I am not expecting or imposing any rules or morality onto the people.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

Not only that but the real goal behind a rule is to stimulate relfection where reflection may not naturally occur. Ideally, upon this reflection one will see the reason behind the rule and decide to do what the rule says because they agree with the intent of the rule and not the reward or punishment itself.


Yeah rules could be considered a cushion, but even without a rule they could still reflect on it. There are many things that are not rules to me and I still reflect on them. It is because I was taught deductive reasoning behind actions. Most theists are not taught it, but instead they are dictated their rules and told not to question them.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

It has everything with trying to make them a better person. Without testing in schools even the ''good'' students can get lulled into a false sense of security. A person can think they know something or have a good grasp on something and actually not.


The key point I am making is that the goal is not to try and make a person good, but to see if they would do it all on their own without any guidance, suggestion or motivation. If I were god, I wouldn't be trying to make a person into a good person so there is no need to set rules.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

Whose to say they aren't? Plus you have to remember that God was taking nomadic people and turning them into a societal people. And also I can really comment on the state of such foods during that time.


I am not even sure how you want me to respond to this statement. It seems rather strange that god would want them to be societal, why not design them to have societal drive built in? I find this argument hard to accept because it's another one of those, "God doesn't like the skin on your penis, so you need to remove it arguments." It just seems absurd that a god who had the power to create the universe, to fashion all these wonderful and complex laws of physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics and math to quibble over something so insignificant as a tiny piece of skin. If god wanted them to be societal, build that into their ambition then, why do these sort of half ass rules instead that might not work.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

Really, so when you tell your kid not to touch the stove when it's on, your imposing your power of the child?


Once again there is a difference here. However if you really want to make this argument all I have to say is, the child will learn that stoves are hot. Sure it might not prevent them from burning themselves but they will learn the lesson. You know despite this fact, often times children no matter how many times you profess a good reason to not do something, they will do it until they experience it for themselves anyways. So all your pre-planing and restriction in most cases does not solve the problem. Most people rarely accept advice, they usually listen, and then do it anyways, and turn around to acknowledge that the advice was good and they should have heeded it. So if a person isn't going to listen to advice, all your talk, all your threats, all your warnings will go unnoticed.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

I never said the existence of God was testable. I merely made the presupposition that if He does exist, your point is moot. You on the other hand made the statement that about what theists would do in the absence of the presupposed actually existing God.


Okay should I adjust my argument a little. Some (not all) people will behave how they want to behave regardless if they believe a god exists or not. Some people (not all) who believe a god exists will alter their behavior only because of their belief that this god will punish or reward them.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

As I said, supposing God exists, we can't reasonably determine what anything would be like without Him. That was my main point. I do think God is necessary for an objective grounding of morals, because without a necessary being, or something objective, then all that's left is the subjective-ness of the human perspective.


Just about everything is subjective when it comes to the human perspective, so why would this be any different? What you think is right, is not always what I consider right. What you think is wrong, is not always what I consider wrong. You can try to claim all that you want that morality is objective but it's not.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

So let me get this straight; a person who follows the rules but does it begrudgingly is not following the rules? That aside, as I said the rules can serve the function of causing reflection upon the rule that may not in other cases take place. This can be a very good thing and while someone may start off following the rule because it's there can easily get to the point that they do it by second nature or because they think it's right or because that becomes their desire or their want to. Thereby bettering that individual in a way they would not have otherwise been bettered.


You are right, absolutely right in your explanation here, however; I am not saying that. I am making the argument that I do not have a goal for people to achieve any kind of greatness, or goodness or anything. I simply want to see who will do what given absolutely nothing to guide them. No commandments, no laws, no rules, nothing.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

I really won't argue this point any further because I think it is the heart that counts. My only point was that rules can serve the purpose of getting one to consider something they may not naturally be inclined to.


Yes this is true, I won't argue or disagree with you here. My point is not to make a good person, it is to see if they will make themselves good without any guidance.

Amperage;173544 wrote:

If Johnny isn't a naturally empathetic person perhaps the rule will help him ponder the possibility of it being there and then and only then will he understand the real meaning behind the rule;


Yeah I agree, this can definitely happen. I am saying where are the Johnnies that did not need the rule but came to the same conclusion?
 
Mister Turnip
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:30 pm
@Krumple,
Quick note: I read some/most of the dialogue between you two above, but not all of it... so forgive me if this has been addressed. But if I'm not mistaken, traditional Christian theology holds that individuals aren't sent to hell for not "accepting a savior," as it were, but rather for their sins. "Accepting a savior" merely transfers the penalty (justly earned) of sin from one person to another. While perhaps a small detail in the discussion, I think it's a noteworthy one, if only because some people find themselves repulsed by a mistaken belief that Christianity teaches that you are "sent to hell" merely for not receiving a messiah.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:31 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173559 wrote:
You still are not getting fully what I am saying. I am saying if I were god there wouldn't be such a thing as sin because I am not expecting or imposing any rules or morality onto the people.
sin is nothing more(or at least can be thought of) than doing that which is wrong(morally speaking). Rule or no rule. The rule merely allows for 2 things. 1. realization of an event. Such that someone may reflect upon it. 2. The rebuttal of ignorance claims.



Krumple;173559 wrote:
Yeah rules could be considered a cushion, but even without a rule they could still reflect on it. There are many things that are not rules to me and I still reflect on them. It is because I was taught deductive reasoning behind actions. Most theists are not taught it, but instead they are dictated their rules and told not to question them.
Could and would are two different things. Yes, obviously people could always reflect on anything, however, often times without some sort of caveat, people may not. In terms of your more theists remark, all I can say is that seems unsubstantiated and biased, and nothing more than a reflection of your own detest-ment of theists.



Krumple;173559 wrote:
The key point I am making is that the goal is not to try and make a person good, but to see if they would do it all on their own without any guidance, suggestion or motivation. If I were god, I wouldn't be trying to make a person into a good person so there is no need to set rules.
Why should God not try to make us better people? Do you desire to make your child a better person? I think every good parent desires for their child to be a good person, and quite often the parent can play a major role in such development.



Krumple;173559 wrote:
I am not even sure how you want me to respond to this statement. It seems rather strange that god would want them to be societal, why not design them to have societal drive built in? I find this argument hard to accept because it's another one of those, "God doesn't like the skin on your penis, so you need to remove it arguments." It just seems absurd that a god who had the power to create the universe, to fashion all these wonderful and complex laws of physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics and math to quibble over something so insignificant as a tiny piece of skin. If god wanted them to be societal, build that into their ambition then, why do these sort of half ass rules instead that might not work.
I'm not sure how you want me to respond to this. Perhaps God should have us have built in jet packs too. It's the fact that winning is so hard, that makes it worth attaining. Often times it is only through such process and adversity that true character can be seen. And often we would not know all we are capable of without such things to overcome. Also, IMO, God works through process. God created the world in 7 days(be it literal or not), not because He needed 7 days but because it gives us insight into His persona. Slow and steady wins the race. Patient, cool, and collected.


Krumple;173559 wrote:
Once again there is a difference here. However if you really want to make this argument all I have to say is, the child will learn that stoves are hot. Sure it might not prevent them from burning themselves but they will learn the lesson. You know despite this fact, often times children no matter how many times you profess a good reason to not do something, they will do it until they experience it for themselves anyways. So all your pre-planing and restriction in most cases does not solve the problem. Most people rarely accept advice, they usually listen, and then do it anyways, and turn around to acknowledge that the advice was good and they should have heeded it. So if a person isn't going to listen to advice, all your talk, all your threats, all your warnings will go unnoticed.
And once again you fail to see the big picture. Sure a child may still burn himself but a loving parent will do everything in his power(short of enslaving) to prevent that. A child may burn his hand and wonder why a loving parent would not have told him that would happen. God loves us and therefore he tells us things even though we may not learn them until we do them.


Krumple;173559 wrote:
You can try to claim all that you want that morality is objective but it's not.
My attempt at a rebuttal as you, "Yes it is." I really don't think we ought to get into another objective vs. relative moral debate since that would be detracting from the intent of the thread.



Krumple;173559 wrote:
You are right, absolutely right in your explanation here, however; I am not saying that. I am making the argument that I do not have a goal for people to achieve any kind of greatness, or goodness or anything. I simply want to see who will do what given absolutely nothing to guide them. No commandments, no laws, no rules, nothing.
Why? Don't you care about all people? Some people legitimately need a rule in place before they will stop and think about it. Not all obviously but rules are not designed for those people in the first place.



Krumple;173559 wrote:
Yes this is true, I won't argue or disagree with you here. My point is not to make a good person, it is to see if they will make themselves good without any guidance.
Again, this seems to be leaving people out to dry. A loving parent will correct a child when he's done wrong. He won't, in most cases, just sit back and let the child harm himself....at least if he loves the child.



Krumple;173559 wrote:
Yeah I agree, this can definitely happen. I am saying where are the Johnnies that did not need the rule but came to the same conclusion?
what do you mean? Those Johnnies exist. And God loves them too. Again, you seem to be wanting some people to fend for themselves when they may not be playing with the same set of equipment. Doing more with less is in some cases considered better. And, as I said, rules are a good way of inciting reflection.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:38 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip;173571 wrote:
Quick note: I read some/most of the dialogue between you two above, but not all of it... so forgive me if this has been addressed. But if I'm not mistaken, traditional Christian theology holds that individuals aren't sent to hell for not "accepting a savior," as it were, but rather for their sins. "Accepting a savior" merely transfers the penalty (justly earned) of sin from one person to another. While perhaps a small detail in the discussion, I think it's a noteworthy one, if only because some people find themselves repulsed by a mistaken belief that Christianity teaches that you are "sent to hell" merely for not receiving a messiah.


Well I heard it argued the way I presented it. Something to the effect of that jesus is considered a gift that god is presenting you with and all you have to do is accept it. The other part of the argument has to deal with "works". But I don't remember their tag line mantra which tries to support their theory that god does not care what you do, instead he only cares if you accept Jesus as your savior.

With all that said, my point is not about sins or not committing sins. My point is that sins would not exist at all. If they did they would have been made up by the people to control but not by me, if I were god.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 05:04 PM ----------

Amperage;173572 wrote:
sin is nothing more than doing that which is bad. Rule or no rule. The rule merely allows for 2 things. 1. realization of an event. Such that someone may reflect upon it. 2. The rebuttal of ignorance claims.


Bad towards whom?

Amperage;173572 wrote:

Could and would are two different things. Yes, obviously people could always reflect on anything, however, often times without some sort of caveat, people may not. In terms of your more theists remark, all I can say is that seems unsubstantiated and biased, and nothing more than a reflection of your own detest-ment of theists.


Okay, well no. There is a tribe in south America that have no gods and no religion, so do you think they can't be a source of evidence to substantiate my claim?

Amperage;173572 wrote:

Why should God not try to make us better people? Do you desire to make your child a better person? I think every good parent desires for their child to be a good person, and quite often the parent can play a major role in such development.


Well first of all your analogy is flawed because there is no corrective measure at all. Your parent scolds and reprimands you according to what sort of behavior they want you to follow. Then you can either recognize it, make corrections or continue the behavior they object to. But if you were to put this in terms of god, there is absolute no chance to make corrections. So it does not stand that god has as his objective to make you a good person, if he did, hell or heaven would not be eternal and you would be reprimanded after committing the sin. I never see anyone repremanded for their sins but I hear a lot of theists saying they will after they die. Well if you have to wait until death before you discover what you did wrong, then it's too late to make corrections. So a better analogy for your parent to child scenario would be something more along the lines of.

Parent to child: "Do something wrong, I will kill you." The child never has a chance to reform or make corrections because you are killing them. Now I hope you don't mistake this to mean that god kills you after you sin. I am saying you can't find out if you did anything wrong until after you are dead right? Isn't that when you get judged? Isn't that when you receive the results of your sins? So you don't ever get a chance to reform or change.

Amperage;173572 wrote:

I'm not sure how you want me to respond to this. Perhaps God should have us have built in jet packs too. It's the fact that winning is so hard, that makes it worth attaining. Often times it is only through such process and adversity that true character can be seen. And often we would not know all we are capable of without such things to overcome. Also, IMO, God works through process. God created the world in 7 days(be it literal or not), not because He needed 7 days but because it gives us insight into His persona. Slow and steady wins the race. Patient, cool, and collected.


I guess destroying the world was also a display of patience, cool and collected too?

Amperage;173572 wrote:

And once again you fail to see the big picture. Sure a child may still burn himself but a loving parent will do everything in his power(short of enslaving) to prevent that. A child may burn his hand and wonder why a loving parent would not have told him that would happen. God loves us and therefore he tells us things even though we may not learn them until we do them.


Tells you? That is why every single case of someone claiming god told them to do something is completely subjective? Where is the consistency? Why is it every one of the Abrahamic religions has some different forbidden food? Why is it they each have their own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong? Your claim is baseless.

Amperage;173572 wrote:

My attempt at a rebuttal as you, "Yes it is." I really don't think we ought to get into another objective vs. relative moral debate since that would be detracting from the intent of the thread.


Then tell me.

Is doing drugs morally wrong?
Is prostitution morally wrong?
Is stealing food to avoid starvation wrong?
Is working on Saturday or Sunday wrong?
Is gambling wrong?
Is eating a hamburger with cheese on it wrong?
Is denying the trinity wrong?

If morality is objective I would be able to determine them. I bet every single person will have a different response. If everyone has a different response it is proof that morality is not objective. It is only something in which you insist must be in order for your fantasy to remain valid.

Amperage;173572 wrote:

Why? Don't you care about all people? Some people legitimately need a rule in place before they will stop and think about it. Not all obviously but rules are not designed for those people in the first place.


The point is not to try and make people good only because they don't want to be punished. It is not to try and make a person good only because they want heaven. The point is to see if they will do it on their own without any outward driving force. I know there will be some who won't care about people. Think about it though. If there was a person who didn't care about people in the first place, they wouldn't care what sort of damnation you waved over their head, they will still do it regardless. Not everyone would but there would still be some. But the point isn't to force them into being good through the use of a threat or damnation or to offer them some reward if they are good.

Amperage;173572 wrote:

Again, this seems to be leaving people out to dry. A loving parent will correct a child when he's done wrong. He won't, in most cases, just sit back and let the child harm himself....at least if he loves the child.


Your analogy does not withstand to the aspect at hand. If you have to wait until death before you understand fully what you have done wrong, it is too late to make corrections.

Amperage;173572 wrote:

what do you mean? Those Johnnies exist. And God loves them too. Again, you seem to be wanting some people to fend for themselves when they may not be playing with the same set of equipment. Doing more with less is in some cases considered better. And, as I said, rules are a good way of inciting reflection.


You call them a good way, but they don't always work. Despite the fact that I would say just the opposite. I think people rarely ever reflect on why they should or should not do something. But instead they focus on what the reward or punishment is instead.

So many theists will throw hell or heaven in your face for not accepting Christianity. If it were all about self reflection and reflecting on the rules to make yourself into a better person, they wouldn't need to tell you that you are destined for hell or damnation. It would never enter the argument. It is clear that a majority of Christians rely heavily on reward of heaven for acting or behaving the way in which they do. I would say they are not true to the rule but only acting it to gain the reward.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:16 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173573 wrote:
Bad towards whom?
Existence. God. themselves. others. Wrong is wrong.



Krumple;173573 wrote:
Okay, well no. There is a tribe in south America that have no gods and no religion, so do you think they can't be a source of evidence to substantiate my claim?
unless they don't have laws too, then no. Also, this again falls into the category of if God is real, then they have a law written on their hearts whether they know it or not.



Krumple;173573 wrote:
Well first of all your analogy is flawed because there is no corrective measure at all. Your parent scolds and reprimands you according to what sort of behavior they want you to follow. Then you can either recognize it, make corrections or continue the behavior they object to. But if you were to put this in terms of god, there is absolute no chance to make corrections. So it does not stand that god has as his objective to make you a good person, if he did, hell or heaven would not be eternal and you would be reprimanded after committing the sin. I never see anyone reprimanded for their sins but I hear a lot of theists saying they will after they die. Well if you have to wait until death before you discover what you did wrong, then it's too late to make corrections. So a better analogy for your parent to child scenario would be something more along the lines of.

Parent to child: "Do something wrong, I will kill you." The child never has a chance to reform or make corrections because you are killing them. Now I hope you don't mistake this to mean that god kills you after you sin. I am saying you can't find out if you did anything wrong until after you are dead right? Isn't that when you get judged? Isn't that when you receive the results of your sins? So you don't ever get a chance to reform or change.
God's reprimand takes place within our hearts. The reprimand we receive from God is removing ourselves from the blessings He desires to bestow upon us. It would be similar being away from someone you love. The reprimand is being away from that person and hopefully doing what you can to be with them.



Krumple;173573 wrote:
I guess destroying the world was also a display of patience, cool and collected too?
As far as I can tell the world still exists...



Krumple;173573 wrote:
Tells you? That is why every single case of someone claiming god told them to do something is completely subjective? Where is the consistency? Why is it every one of the Abrahamic religions has some different forbidden food? Why is it they each have their own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong? Your claim is baseless.
Why are you different from me? Why is it no two people are the same?



Krumple;173573 wrote:
Then tell me.

Is doing drugs morally wrong?
Is prostitution morally wrong?
Is stealing food to avoid starvation wrong?
Is working on Saturday or Sunday wrong?
Is gambling wrong?
Is eating a hamburger with cheese on it wrong?
Is denying the trinity wrong?

If morality is objective I would be able to determine them. I bet every single person will have a different response. If everyone has a different response it is proof that morality is not objective. It is only something in which you insist must be in order for your fantasy to remain valid.
why would you be able to determine them? There are many things which objectively are but can't be determined. For example, Jack the Ripper. We may never be able to determine who he really was, but I don't think anyone doubts he/she existed.



Krumple;173573 wrote:
The point is not to try and make people good only because they don't want to be punished. It is not to try and make a person good only because they want heaven. The point is to see if they will do it on their own without any outward driving force. I know there will be some who won't care about people. Think about it though. If there was a person who didn't care about people in the first place, they wouldn't care what sort of damnation you waved over their head, they will still do it regardless. Not everyone would but there would still be some. But the point isn't to force them into being good through the use of a threat or damnation or to offer them some reward if they are good.
Would you be willing to risk the multitudes of people who won't do good "without any driving force" and would a loving parent truly be called loving without providing a "driving force" when they know something is best? My point is not about forcing but giving people a reason to evaluate something beyond what they normally would and then hopefully do what's right because they want to and desire to do so.



Krumple;173573 wrote:
Your analogy does not withstand to the aspect at hand. If you have to wait until death before you understand fully what you have done wrong, it is too late to make corrections.
Who says you have to wait until death to know you've done wrong? I feel convicted when I do something wrong within my soul.



Krumple;173573 wrote:
So many theists will throw hell or heaven in your face for not accepting Christianity. If it were all about self reflection and reflecting on the rules to make yourself into a better person, they wouldn't need to tell you that you are destined for hell or damnation. It would never enter the argument. It is clear that a majority of Christians rely heavily on reward of heaven for acting or behaving the way in which they do. I would say they are not true to the rule but only acting it to gain the reward.
And I don't agree with those theists. As I said in another thread, one ought not be a Christian out of some fear, be it real or not, but out of love, hope, faith, and an experience of the truth they find through it.

Christians ought to tell people of the joy, love, and blessings they've received and they have experienced and out a genuine desire for others to experience the same.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » If I Were God
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 08:27:33