Please answer this question.

[Shandril105]

She is an utter bitch.

One must rise above nature to deal with her.

Well, get right on it then!

[9ball8]

He does.

(place full burden on grown up humans).
Then some contradiction in your next post:

Exactly. We DON'T understand why those we personally hate get to live while others don't. That's the whole point. We don't see the whole picture, we can only see a very limited bit of it.

We see much more than our ancestors, vassals of despotic kings who claimed divine right. It should be obvious to all, regardless of religious belief. Bad behavior should be punished accordingly, and it is in our collective best interests to monitor the bad actors and control them. "We can only see a limited bit of it", is a cop-out IMO. The reward for our vigilance is a better world, the punishment for not reacting is hell on earth.

My point is, in moments when I consider that god might exist, I like to think that this would be near the top of it's list of things humans must do. Belief and worshipping god would come after that.

Bill Clinton, Cheney and others are not as bad as Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Therefore, they do not suffer the same fate -being poisoned or forced to take one's own life. Hopefully, the future will prove that executives who commit crimes like Clinton or Cheney are punished with financial ruin or jail time. That would at least drive such behavior underground rather than allow it's practice in broad daylight. It is up to us -grown up humans- to make the punishment more effective than applied in the past.

[hadit]

(place full burden on grown up humans).
Then some contradiction in your next post:

Two different things. God does indeed place responsibility on all for sin. All have sinned, period.

We see much more than our ancestors, vassals of despotic kings who claimed divine right. It should be obvious to all, regardless of religious belief. Bad behavior should be punished accordingly, and it is in our collective best interests to monitor the bad actors and control them. "We can only see a limited bit of it", is a cop-out IMO. The reward for our vigilance is a better world, the punishment for not reacting is hell on earth.

My point is, in moments when I consider that god might exist, I like to think that this would be near the top of it's list of things humans must do. Belief and worshipping god would come after that.

Bill Clinton, Cheney and others are not as bad as Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Therefore, they do not suffer the same fate -being poisoned or forced to take one's own life. Hopefully, the future will prove that executives who commit crimes like Clinton or Cheney are punished with financial ruin or jail time. That would at least drive such behavior underground rather than allow it's practice in broad daylight. It is up to us -grown up humans- to make the punishment more effective than applied in the past.

Yes, we can in society take steps to mitigate evil activity. We can't, however, eliminate it.

[pavlos]

I didn't say it was a question, I merely said, "There are a number of things wrong with your post..."

Didn't say you did, I was just pointing out it was a statement, which was not in need of a reply.

A) That was to Topsy.

Irrelevant.

B) The only reason I brought that up was to preface the point that God has the bigger picture, that we don't have. It wasn't to argue God's transcendence or God's existence,

Then why ask the question. This makes your rant kind of moot.

but merely to ask her - for the sake of argument - to consider that that IF God does indeed have the bigger perspective, and knowledge that we don't have, then it is presumptuous for us to assume the worst, when we don't know all the facts.

And all I was saying, that the "B" option was the only one to take, as the other was impossible. So I am still within topic.

So Topsy's and my posts were related to the topic. Then you jumped in to say that a transcendent God can't exist, yadda yadda yadda. So yeah, once again you're wanting to argue your pet topic. That's fine if you want to do that, but as I said, start a new thread so we don't derail this one.

As was mine so I suggest you stop doing it.

To be honest,

I'll stop you right there, not possible.

in the past I probably would've quickly got into a debate on things like God's transcendence, or God's existence, etc. (off topic or not) But now I get bored arguing stuff like that... especially with extremely hardcore atheists like you.

Yes I am technically without god just as millions of non believers and other different religious person (too yours) are. thats as far as it goes, I'm a humanist plain and simple, whereas you are an ahumanist (pity it's not a real word, it should be.) It says exactly what theist's are.

And as I have said on other threads, God is discerned through the spirit, not our minds/intellect.

So you imagine. all it takes is one instant to prove a thing is true, the world is still waiting.

So for someone like you, who is spiritually dead,

Or enlightened.

It's you're, not "your."

Petty, and sad, anyway "Your" fits just as well. If you are to correct my grammar you should of checked "cant" not "your", it should have been "can't"
Lol a religious american correcting my grammar who would have "thunk" it (thought it).

And you're showing your obsession again, with inane comments like religious people can't be honest.

I think that theism is inherently dishonest and forces people that follow religious beliefs seriously to lie even if they would not normally do so. They have no choice, because if they did admit that some things about the religion they follow are invalid, they would have to consider deconverting from all theisms or finding another religion. This is too stressful, where lying is not as stressful and can be blanked out later or justified retroactively.
The main problem with theism in general -- not just Christianity -- is that it is usually based on supernaturalism.
Supernaturalism can't be proven, and draws people towards descriptions of the world that are more fantasy than fact.
This requirement to support supernaturalism leads to a struggle by the theist to support the theistic beliefs by any means necessary.
Yet, supernaturalism, if it were true, would mean that we live in a vastly different world from what we see before us on a day to day basis -- as well as a much different world from that which is described by serious and detailed investigation of the world as it is.

I'm just curious - what is your basis for stating that "nothing has that right."? I'm not disagreeing with you - or agreeing - merely asking you what you're going by.... your own personal standard? Your culture's standard?

Well aren't we using the bible, if the bible says the creator of life can also take it away, then if man creates a sapient being that is identical to a human, but man feels that it is morally wrong to take it's life away.
A god being the author of man's morality, would then think, if man finds it immoral, god would also find it immoral. it would not have killing or destroy life in it's remit. It would be morally inept if it did, might does not make right.

If man creates a sapient being that is identical to a human Then man has the right to take life however and whenever He desires. Since man is the author of said life, He can take life and give life at His whim. Life is a gift from man. Every moment it exist is a gift from it's Creator). Man is under no obligation to sustain the individual life. Since man created the sapient being He can do with it as He desires. only that which creates a life can take a life. But since man is the giver of the sapient beings life, He can take it life in whatever manner He chooses. It’s His prerogative.

Would you agree with that?
If not why?
Now remember, this sapient being sees man as it's god, it's creator. So don't say man is not god, that would be infantile. And also remember if man takes the sapient being life he can always create a new one.

And I hope you realize, that unless an objective, absolute universal standard exists, then all you're doing is stating your opinion, which can not be more true than anyone else's opinion, if there is no actual absolute moral truth. And if there IS an absolute universal moral truth, then I'm dying to know how you, as an atheist, will account for that.

In a religious world view morals are arbitrary, because you have to decide whether your morals are in line with gods morals. God could at any time change what is right and what is wrong. If god said murder was right you would have to agree. Please don't come back with "god would not do that" clearly by the bible he would, "who are you to know how god thinks or feels."

Mine aren't arbitrary, mine are based on reason and empathy. They are derived from my society and the morals of my parents and peers.

It just shows that man is morally superior to god.
It is about time you realised that.

I don't want to be rude here, so I'll keep my thoughts on that statement to myself.

No go ahead be rude. Show your ahumanist side, you do every time you pray anyway.

[hadit]

Well aren't we using the bible, if the bible says the creator of life can also take it away, then if man creates a sapient being that is identical to a human, but man feels that it is morally wrong to take it's life away.

Some may feel that it is. Others may not. Neither feeling is authoritative. Either it's morally wrong to take life away or it is not. Clearly there are occasions when it is not morally wrong to take a life.

A god being the author of man's morality, would then think, if man finds it immoral, god would also find it immoral. it would not have killing or destroy life in it's remit. It would be morally inept if it did, might does not make right.
Would you agree with that?
If not why?

Not all killing is immoral. It being so is YOUR personal belief, which you are attempting to project onto a God in which you do not believe. See the disconnect?

Now remember, this sapient being sees man as it's god, it's creator. So don't say man is not god, that would be infantile.

And how would that be? You can call a donkey's tail a leg, but that doesn't make the donkey have 5 legs. Man is not God, despite a being thinking that he is.

And also remember if man takes the sapient being life he can always create a new one.
In a religious world view morals are arbitrary, because you have to decide whether your morals are in line with gods morals. God could at any time change what is right and what is wrong.

On the contrary. If He changed the meaning of what is right and what is wrong, He would not be consistent and unchanging. God is both, therefore He will not change His mind about what is right and what is not.

If god said murder was right you would have to agree. Please don't come back with "god would not do that" clearly by the bible he would, "who are you to know how god thinks or feels."

Clearly by the Bible God does not say murder is right, unless you want to argue that execution is murder, something beyond the purview of this thread.

Mine aren't arbitrary, mine are based on reason and empathy. They are derived from my society and the morals of my parents and peers.
No go ahead be rude. Show your ahumanist side, you do every time you pray anyway.

Reason and empathy are changing and arbitrary. So is anything derived from society and the morals of parents and peers. Your morality is vastly different from that practiced by aboriginal tribes, and you would claim their's is arbitrary while your's is not? Hardly.

[TopsyTurvy]

On the contrary. If He changed the meaning of what is right and what is wrong, He would not be consistent and unchanging. God is both, therefore He will not change His mind about what is right and what is not.

So things didn't change between the OT and the NT........

[hadit]

So things didn't change between the OT and the NT........

Grace completed the Law, but the underlying standards of the Law did not change. God still has the right to give life and remove it.

[TopsyTurvy]

Right.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Two different things. God does indeed place responsibility on all for sin. All have sinned, period.

If you believe in the concept of Original Sin, which I don't.

[9ball8]

The mere fact that we cannot eliminate all evil does not relieve our obligation to constantly improve our ability to do so. We do much better at preventing & sanctioning bad behavior than we did 200 years ago.

It is an obligation both apart from, and part of religion. When I hear religious types claim frailty and the inability of humans to achieve god-like ability to eliminate evil, I smell lame excuses. There is no dispensation for individual recidivists, there is no excuse for sleeping citizens who should be electing less-corrupt politicians. There is no excuse for law enforcement and judges who won't take on major players committing crimes because it would "slow down the economy", "...be too dangerous", or "too expensive".

One of the most outrageous elements of religion: pardoning the devout who commits a given sin repeatedly. It is the height of hypocrisy when it comes from a church that favors the death penalty or life sentencing. If it is god's will to pardon one who truly repents, then it is up to humans to determine that the one who repents and repeats is just fulla shit, rather than actually repenting. That fails in humanist society, but it fails by equal or greater measure in religion.

[Cd.]

This question is for everyone... but if you're an atheist, I just want to say up front that this is not a debate on God's existence. But feel free to answer the question, from a purely theoretical standpoint.

Does God - the Creator and Giver of all life - have the right to take life away, as He sees fit?

That may sound like a no-brainer, but the problem comes in when people die in ways that might seem unfair to us, from our limited perspective as fallible human beings.

There's much more to be said about this... but let me start with this and then maybe we can go from there, because this is related to other topics.

I suppose God has a right do as he or she pleases.

I believe the concept of an anthormorphic God, as describe in the Old Testimen was created so that people of that era could understand him.

[tatervt]

Heh, IYAM, no. Not unless your're talking about a malevolent God. And I don't want to get too off-topic, but it's illogical to believe that God is evil. The creator of the universe and all life is also the source of truth - including moral truths. So, if God is the lawgiver when it comes to morality, then it makes no sense to believe that we (limited human beings) could ever be better or more knowledable than God, when it comes to right/wrong... or anything, for that matter.

But aren't you quickly deciding that death = bad?? To say that God would need to be evil in order to find joy in killing people would assume that death is a bad thing. But I thought as a Christian death was just the beginning, and that the really good parts are supposed to start once you die (assuming you meet the requirements for heaven).

[colonel]

I believe the concept of an anthormorphic God, as describe in the Old Testimen was created so that people of that era could understand him.

We need one of those for FM.

[hadit]

The mere fact that we cannot eliminate all evil does not relieve our obligation to constantly improve our ability to do so. We do much better at preventing & sanctioning bad behavior than we did 200 years ago.

Of course we should be doing everything we can to mitigate evil.

It is an obligation both apart from, and part of religion. When I hear religious types claim frailty and the inability of humans to achieve god-like ability to eliminate evil, I smell lame excuses. There is no dispensation for individual recidivists, there is no excuse for sleeping citizens who should be electing less-corrupt politicians. There is no excuse for law enforcement and judges who won't take on major players committing crimes because it would "slow down the economy", "...be too dangerous", or "too expensive".

One of the most outrageous elements of religion: pardoning the devout who commits a given sin repeatedly. It is the height of hypocrisy when it comes from a church that favors the death penalty or life sentencing. If it is god's will to pardon one who truly repents, then it is up to humans to determine that the one who repents and repeats is just fulla shit, rather than actually repenting. That fails in humanist society, but it fails by equal or greater measure in religion.

I think you're mixing the responsibilities of the Church with those of the state. The state DOES have the right and responsibility to punish evil. Being forgiven of sin does not eliminate the person's responsibility to pay his debt to society.

[Jarik]

If you give birth to a child does that mean you should be able to kill him/her whenever and however you please?

If your god is real, he's a dick. And I'd readily reign in hell rather than serve a genocidal asshole in heaven. Sounds like this Lucifer guy was just trying to overthrow a tyrant.

And if your god wrote the Bible, what makes you think he didn't lie in it? If you write a book about yourself, you can write down "this is all true and none of it is a lie because I never lie"

Just... saying... >_>

[92Notch]

i voted "don't know", the answer is prolly yes, but i wish he wouldn't.

[AlbertJ]

If you give birth to a child does that mean you should be able to kill him/her whenever and however you please?

It's against the law to kill your own children.

[lily]

If you give birth to a child does that mean you should be able to kill him/her whenever and however you please?

If your god is real, he's a dick. And I'd readily reign in hell rather than serve a genocidal asshole in heaven. Sounds like this Lucifer guy was just trying to overthrow a tyrant.

And if your god wrote the Bible, what makes you think he didn't lie in it? If you write a book about yourself, you can write down "this is all true and none of it is a lie because I never lie"

Just... saying... >_>

Maybe you didn't read the thread, but as I said to tater, it is illogical to think that you or I (or lucifer, or anyone) could ever be more moral than God. God is Truth and that includes moral truths. Your claim that God is wrong or a "dick" is like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum over something he obviously doesn't understand and screaming, "Mommy, you are mean, I hate you, I know better than you!!!!!!!!" (only a zillion times more than the difference between baby and parent)

And if you honestly think that God is a "tyrant", then no offense, but you really, really, really don't know God at all.

[Cyclone Ranger]

When an Andrea Smith kills her children, we put her in jail.

[lily]

Um guys, there's a difference between giving birth and being the author of life itself.

From a Christian perspective, we (parents) don't even really "own" our children. God has entrusted them to us.

In fact, to take it even further, we don't even "own" this earth, we are more like the managers, and God is the owner. It was entrusted to us, but we haven't been very good stewards or "managers."

And between the two, who has the right to "pull the plug" on something, the owner or the manager?