Why can atheists do what they deny to God?

[theophilus]

I have recently received "friendly warnings" about a couple of posts which were deemed to be out of harmony with the site rules. I accpeted this, and am trying to conform as best I can.

But this has raised an interesting question:

If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

If you want to respond, please understand that the issue here is AUTHORITY, not motivation or anything else.

[Spenser]

Why do you not only antagonize us, but the mods as well. I wonder, will you presuppose the mods aren't actually in control of this site and cannot justify running it how they see fit?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
Why do you not only antagonize us, but the mods as well. I wonder, will you presuppose the mods aren't actually in control of this site and cannot justify running it how they see fit?

Why do you only respond to a legitimate question with verbal blurts. If you don't have anything to add, why not just stay out of the way.

[Howard]

This is borderline trollish and I shouldn’t take the bait but…

For one thing the mods and their authority are demonstrably real... and I speak from personal experience on this matter.

Theo, when did you get on this “let’s antagonize the atheists with deliberately provocative, and not very well conceived, propositions” kick? Is your church having some kind of contest?

[Philosoft]

I see very little initial merit to this topic, but, against my better judgement, I'm going to give a little leeway. Very little. Tread lightly, ladies and gents.

[Jobar]

Damn, Howard, you beat me to it.

theophilus, why don't you pray to your God to start a discussion forum, and administer it according to His rules? I'd say that atheists would positively stampede there to sign up, in order to prove that the admin of the board was unreal.

Wonder if He would ban people for doing that? If He wouldn't, someone needs to clue in ChristianForums, and the Baptist Board... ;)

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Howard
This is borderline trollish and I shouldn’t take the bait but…

For one thing the mods and their authority are demonstrably real... and I speak from personal experience on this matter.

Theo, when did you get on this “let’s antagonize the atheists with deliberately provocative, and not very well conceived, propositions” kick? Is your church having some kind of contest?

I got on it when people like you consistently refuse to give pertinent answers to my questions - as you've illustrated here.

The question was, as you'd have known if you'd read carefully, why do the mods have authority over their "creation" to set standards, but God must not have any such authority over his creation.

It has nothing to do with which is real. When I say that morality is what God says it is, I have been told that even if he exists, God has no such authority over his creation.

This was a legitimate question based on statements made on this site. Now, if you'd like to address that, well. No more silliness about me antagonizing people.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I see very little initial merit to this topic, but, against my better judgement, I'm going to give a little leeway. Very little. Tread lightly, ladies and gents.

Perhaps if you'll see my answer to Howard above, you'll understand the merit.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
Damn, Howard, you beat me to it.

Why would you envy Howard for making a completely irrelevant statement before you could?

theophilus, why don't you pray to your God to start a discussion forum, and administer it according to His rules? I'd say that atheists would positively stampede there to sign up, in order to prove that the admin of the board was unreal.

Wonder if He would ban people for doing that? If He wouldn't, someone needs to clue in ChristianForums, and the Baptist Board... ;)

Your inability to see the issue here is dissappointing to me. Now, I'm getting - what was the term you used - discouraged.

[spacer1]

Originally posted by theophilus
The question was, as you'd have known if you'd read carefully, why do the mods have authority over their "creation" to set standards, but God must not have any such authority over his creation.
I believe the more pertinent question would be: "Why assume that God exists in the first place?"

[BioBeing]

When I signed up on this site, I agreed to be moderated by extant moderators.

When I signed up to be born, I did not agree to be ruled by a non existant God.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theophilus

The question was, as you'd have known if you'd read carefully, why do the mods have authority over their "creation" to set standards, but God must not have any such authority over his creation.



The most important difference is that postings are inanimate objects, while we are sentient creatures. What you can do with one is not what you can do with another, even if Christians compare people to robots


http://www.gospelcom.net/knowtheword/Art_Angry.shtml

'Even in human affairs, the creator has a right to do whatever he likes with his creation. A computer engineer or a car manufacturer can use their computer or car as they please. They may sell their creations, keep them, give them to friends, or even destroy them if they so desire. The Bible recognizes the sovereignty of God our Creator by portraying Him as a potter & human beings as the clay (e.g. Jer.18:1-10.)'

Notice how Christians regard people like computers or cars, which can be scrapped or given away as property, or like clay to be used as wished.

To answer your question :-

The mods are dealing with adult people, who have contracted with each other to abide by the standards they have created.


If you do not like what the mods do with the board, you are quite free not to use it.

The mods rules are not arbitrary, subjective creations of the mods. If the mods change , the rules will remain. The rules are democratic creations of Internet Infidels, a body distinct from the persons who happen to make it up at any one time (just as America is something different from the totality of American people at any one time)

The mods have DELEGATED authority - an authority which ultimately comes from the people who use the board.


Are you claiming God has DELEGATED authority - an authority which ultimately comes from us?

Are you claiming that the mods rules (which you call subjective, as they are not from God) are analogous to God's rules (which you call objective)?

It is YOU who claims that there is a fundamental difference between man-made rules and God's rules. (Although you have objective and subjective the wrong way around)

You therefore cannot claim that the two should be treated the same.

[Evolutionist]

The question was, as you'd have known if you'd read carefully, why do the mods have authority over their "creation" to set standards, but God must not have any such authority over his creation.

It has nothing to do with which is real. When I say that morality is what God says it is, I have been told that even if he exists, God has no such authority over his creation.

Well, the mods and administrators actually exist. More to the point, we are actually certain that they exist. We can see pics of them- even go and see them if we really wanted to. Whilst your god is a different matter. We don't know he exists, some of us believe he does, some of us believe other gods exist, and this is their creation to do with as they please.

That would be the most obvious answer, there's nothing other than the belief of a group of humans that your god exists and this is his creation- so why even concider it?

As for some atheists who don't think god can do with as he likes even if he did exist and this is his creation, it usually comes down to them believing that you cannot order scentient beings around as though they were objects such as cars or whatever.

Personally, for me it's a moot point- until someone can show that a god exists, it's not worth thinking about.

[Alan N]

Theophilus


If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

and...

It has nothing to do with which is real. When I say that morality is what God says it is, I have been told that even if he exists, God has no such authority over his creation.


I would agree with you Theophilus. I don't believe there's a difference, if in fact God exists. The creator's domain is under his/their authority.

Evolutionist

As for some atheists who don't think god can do with as he likes even if he did exist and this is his creation, it usually comes down to them believing that you cannot order scentient beings around as though they were objects such as cars or whatever.

Several posters have noted sentience as some special exclusion to authority. As a parent, I order by children around, and demand certain behaviors. As an employee, I am ordered around, and demands are most certainly made of me as if I were an object. Sentience doesn't grant you amnesty to the hand of authority.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by BioBeing
When I signed up on this site, I agreed to be moderated by extant moderators.

When I signed up to be born, I did not agree to be ruled by a non existant God.

Wow, that's going to be my new response when anyone asks me 'why I don't accept the authority of god'. Nice one.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Alan N


Several posters have noted sentience as some special exclusion to authority. As a parent, I order by children around, and demand certain behaviors. As an employee, I am ordered around, and demands are most certainly made of me as if I were an object. Sentience doesn't grant you amnesty to the hand of authority.

Of course, some sentient beings have authority over others.

But this authority, ultimately, is democratically sanctioned by society, and should not be exercised on a 'might makes right' principle.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by theophilus
If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

If you want to respond, please understand that the issue here is AUTHORITY, not motivation or anything else.

Authority? Are you talking about power, or legitimacy? If you are talking about power, then clearly, if god has the power, he can make the rules.

But that doesn't mean morality comes out of the barrel of a gun. God can make the rules, but, if they are based on power, then we are not obliged to obey them. We may obey them out of self interest, to avoid punishment, but there is no moral obligation to obey.

And you can feel the same way about the moderators here if you want. Maybe that's why you troll, jumping from thread to thread, running thru crowds throwing bombs, refusing to ever stop and answer the concrete issues you have raised.

Or maybe you are talking about legitimacy rather than power. Once again, you are challenging us to say how we can have legitimate authority in a material world. By so doing, you are implicitly claiming that you can explain legitimacy in a supernatural world. You are saying you can explain the observed features of the universe better than a materialist can.

But when you are challenged do the explaining that you have said you can do, you will evade; you will taunt; you will change threads; you will do anything to keep us stirred up while not really addressing the question yourself.

Here's our cross-thread situation:

1. You said, in effect, that you can explain morality better than atheists can.

2. I said I can explain it as well as you, and you should go first so I can see how well you explain it.

3a. You said, after much tooth pulling, that morality has something to do with the creator/creation division.

3b. You also said god will hurt me if I don't obey his orders.

4a. I asked what it is about the creator/creation thing that makes god a moral authority. Does the creator get to make moral rules for the creation in all possible worlds, no matter how evil and nasty he is? Why do we arbitrarily assume it is the creator that rules over the creation rather than vice versa?

4b. I pointed out that power doesn't equal moral authority. If it did, Hitler would have had moral authority over the Jews.

5. You refused to further address these issues that you had raised. Instead, you jump from thread to thread, raising them again and again, but always refusing to really deal with them.

6. I challenged you to debate the issue with me. I want you in a position where I can make you answer a simple question that you raised.

7. You said, "I am debating," and continued running thru the crowd thowing bombs.

So, once again, I challenge you to debate me one on one, so that you will have to answer the question unless you want your obstructionism to be obvious to all.

Closing note: If I say, "The authority of the moderators comes from the moderator/moderated division, and the moderators will punish you if you do not comply," I will have answered the question in this thread's OP as well as you have ever answered it about god.

The reason you are not going to come back and explain why god has more legitimate authority than the moderators is that you really can't do it.
crc

[Alan N]

I don't disagree Steven. "Might makes right" should be reworded "position determines authority". Even though I have a choice to remain in my place of employment, I really must submit to the authority(ies) in order to remain here.

If God exists, his position determines authority.

I am an athiest, so don't misread me.

Might doesn't make right, it just makes you comply.

[emur]

Why do the mods have authority over their "creation" to set standards, but God must not have any such authority over his creation?

The moderators are telling us directly what the rules are. Their authority is established by "first hand account".

God on the other hand needs humans to tell us about him and his authority. Thus God's authority comes to us second hand, third hand, or worse. In the end, obeying God boils down to obeying humans based on a very subjective experience. I do not believe such a practice is wise.

By way of illustration, I used to be a clerk in a grocery store. The store hired a former grocery store manager (not of the same store or chain) as a clerk. As far as position was concerned, he and I were co-equals. Not long after he was hired, he started telling me what to do. I politely responded that unless my boss had told him to tell me what to do with me present, that I would not stop what I was doing to do what he wanted me to do. Turned out that my boss had said nothing to him, and I was right not to do what he said, since he had no real authority over me.

It's the same with God. If God is my authority, he can tell me so himself. I refuse to submit based on the words of humans (writers of the bible, church leaders, theophilus, etc), which are nothing more than second hand accounts or worse.

Hopefully this answers the question above in a clear manner.

Mel

[eifion]

Originally posted by theophilus
If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?


Becauase the mods don't have infallable foreknowledge of everything every user is ever going to post.

Also the mods don't claim to be omnipotent and morally perfect. A omnipotent and morally perfect mod, with infallable foreknowledge that I was going to break forum rules in 50 posts' time would cancel my account now, not let me loose on the forums, watch me break the rules then smack me down humiliatingly in front of everyone.

[Asha'man]

If I don't like the rules of this forum, I can go elsewhere.

If I don't like the rules that God created for the universe, what other universe can I go to?

[TomboyMom]

1. The moderators exist; god does not.
2. When we participate in the boards, we agree to submit ourselves to the authority of the moderators. They derive their authority from us, the people over whom they exercise their authority. God derives his authority form his alleged omnipotence and from being the baddest mother f*r on the block.

Rene

[Stephen T-B]

I did like this, BioBeing: “When I signed up on this site, I agreed to be moderated by extant moderators.

When I signed up to be born, I did not agree to be ruled by a non existent God.”

I have say, though, I don’t remember having ever signed up to be born...

Emur also put his finger on the nub of this issue with his point about the Moderators directly laying down the rules while god (an all-powerful god, no less) has do do it indirectly via flawed human beings.
(To object that we may refer to the actual utterances of Jesus Christ - part of the Godhead - is to overlook the fact that they come to us via any number of interpreters, editors, translators and propagandists.)
God’s precise requirements therefore remain a matter of the greatest controversy, as we see in the continuing antagonisms between Conservative and Liberal Christians, and more strikingly still, between Christians, Jews and Moslems - all of who seek to obey God.

[Alan N]

IMHO, consequence determines the degree to which we submit to authority. Or alternately, authority only exists where there is power to impart consequence.

This parallels the athiest/theist morality issue to me. The system of action/consequence is morality. You do this and that will happen to you. Every person (ok, maybe it's just me) would be imprisoned if every thought they have/had was actually acted on. We're not moral, we just 'act' moral. I would submit that we don't think morally, in general, but we act morally because consequence is the mother of all action. So even if you choose not to submit and there remains consequence(s), authority/morality remains...you're disregard of it has little to do with it's abitlity to affect you.

If there was a real-world/tangible consequence (other than social estrangement) for my disbelief in God, I would likely reconsider my athiestic worldview.

After re-reading this, "ramblings" was quite appropriate for the subject.

[Mageth]

I would submit that we don't think morally, in general, but we act morally because consequence is the mother of all action.

I think that's a bit too simplistic. It is true that some behavior is controlled out of fear of the consequences, but many people, myself included, act "morally" in many situations not out of fear of the consequences but for other reasons, for example, out of empathy and recognition of the rights of others or by applying the "golden rule", the "platinum rule", or an amalgam of the two. I do not murder because I'm afraid of the consequences, but because I do not want to be murdered, and recognize that others don't want to be murdered either.

We're all familiar with the Golden Rule. The "Platinum Rule" goes something like "Do unto others as they would have done unto them." The amalgam, which I refer to as the "Alloy Rule", goes something like "Apply the Platinum Rule if you know what someone wants done unto them. If you don't know, apply the Golden Rule."

[Alan N]

How did you come to obtain your "empathy and recognition of the rights of others"? Are these intrisic properties to people? I would like to think that I too have a natural empathy and would independantly recognize the rights of others, but after seeing my 2 year old fight with my 5 year old, I doubt seriously that empathy and rights of others is natural...it is taught. Now why would I ever teach that he should respect the rights of his brother? Because I was taught that? Because it is
just "right". Because society esteems it? I don't know. I think it is because consequence has progressively determined what we consider "the rights of others".

IMO, consequece is a predicate to the "Golden rule".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Obviously, the question has several answers, depending on the context. In summary:

1. The moderators exist, God doesn't.

2. Even if God DID exist, we didn't volunteer to be under his authority.

3. Even if we are under his authority, we don't have to LIKE being under his authority. We can judge the moderators of this site, and we can judge God. We find the Biblical God to be thoroughly evil. If you can provide evidence that the moderators of this site have performed equivalent atrocities, I'll judge them to be evil too.

...Which highlights one of the many bizarre contradictions of Christian presuppositionalism. If you argue that we have morality because it "comes from God", then why are you asking us to switch off that morality? And why do the God-given morality detectors register "EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!" when pointed in God's direction?

[Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas]

Spenser and All,
Originally posted by Spenser
Why do you not only antagonize us, but the mods as well. I wonder, will you presuppose the mods aren't actually in control of this site and cannot justify running it how they see fit?



:confused:



You honestly don't see the irony in this?



Philosoft: As trollish as this post may seem...it's the self-referential arguments that are the most pertinent and most relevant.



I think theo brings up a good point using a matter that's close to home.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[Free Thinkr]

Originally posted by theophilus
I have recently received "friendly warnings" about a couple of posts which were deemed to be out of harmony with the site rules. I accpeted this, and am trying to conform as best I can.

But this has raised an interesting question:

If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

If you want to respond, please understand that the issue here is AUTHORITY, not motivation or anything else.

Very simple: no one is forcing you to be here.

[Mageth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan N
How did you come to obtain your "empathy and recognition of the rights of others"? Are these intrisic properties to people? I would like to think that I too have a natural empathy and would independantly recognize the rights of others, but after seeing my 2 year old fight with my 5 year old, I doubt seriously that empathy and rights of others is natural...it is taught.

I too have a child, and while it is true that behavior is mainly conrolled "from above" for a child at an early age, there does come a point when (most) children in a good environment begin to develop a sense of self-image, and then a recognition of the sameness of "self" in others, and from thence, empathy and compassion. I think that this is a natural trait that is developed in (most) humans and, actually, don't think that empathy and compsassion can really be taught. If a child doesn't develop a proper self-image and then a proper recognition of the individuality of others, you can't teach them empathy or to recognize the rights of others. I think the opposite is true, though; a bad environment can supress the development of self-image, empathy and compassion in a child.

I might say that "consequences" are a useful tool in guiding a child, but that attributing empathy and compassion solely as the results of taught "consequences" is too simplistic - there's more to it than that.

Now why would I ever teach that he should respect the rights of his brother? Because I was taught that? Because it is
just "right". Because society esteems it? I don't know. I think it is because consequence has progressively determined what we consider "the rights of others".

I think we've learned to recognize the rights of others because we, as a species, have learned to recognize others as individuals like ourselves who want the same rights afforded to them as I do to myself.

IMO, consequece is a predicate to the "Golden rule".

I would say that good consequences (benefits) are a result of the "Golden Rule", and in applying it we've learned that benefits come to both us and others.

[Sol]

"Why can atheists do what they deny to God?"

Your question is your own perception. No one can tell you why you view this the way you do, only you can determine that for yourself. I acknowlege your perception. I have understanding, compassion and respect for what you perceive and believe. Can you do the same for others (though they may be in direct opposition to your own)? The forum has a set of rules, they apply to everyone. We have choice to visit or not, we can participate and express our opposing views while acknowledging and respecting the rules and each other. At the end of the day, you or I or anyone else can walk away with something or nothing depending on our individual percepts.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft: As trollish as this post may seem...it's the self-referential arguments that are the most pertinent and most relevant.
I've been keeping abreast, SOMMS, and you guys are doing a good job of keeping this discussion worthwhile. Carry on.

[Alan N]

I might say that "consequences" are a useful tool in guiding a child, but that attributing empathy and compassion solely as the results of taught "consequences" is too simplistic - there's more to it than that.
...
I think we've learned to recognize the rights of others because we, as a species, have learned to recognize others as individuals like ourselves who want the same rights afforded to them as I do to myself.

Clearly there's more to it than that. There's a whole host of issues with what we're discussing. In relation to the OP, however, I still feel quite strongly that authority is via consequence. I've not meant to imply that consequence is only a negative. Positive/negative consequence should be presumed.

How do we learn? How would a person come to realize that the other person wants to have 'rights' afforded them? How would I learn that rights should be afforded me? Because of our instinctual sense of rights? If there are instinctual rights, how did they come to be? I would argue that systematic consequence shaped what we presume to be self evident rights, otherwise, why? Why act this way and not that way? I know, I know, it's not [completely] that simple.

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by theophilus
If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

If you want to respond, please understand that the issue here is AUTHORITY, not motivation or anything else.

When you have children (and thus you are their creator) do you then get to dictate right and wrong for them for their lives? Even if you could, is right and wrong for your children dictated as right and wrong merely because you are their creator?

When you understand why the answer to both of these is "no" then you will understand why God cannot dicate right and wrong merely because he is god alone.

DC

[xorbie]

See the problem with this entire thread is the incorrect assumption that atheists believe in God, and yet choose not to follow its rules. In addition:

(1) You believe in the mods (I assume).
(2) When you signed up for this forum, you agreed to follow their rules.
(3) There are fora here in which one can ask a mod or admin why a certain rule is the way it is, or question why a thread got moved or a post edited/deleted. One can get immediate feedback.

None of these actually apply to God. If I could pray to God at night and ask "Gee, is it ok for me to maybe have premerital sex this one time?" and plead my case, and then get an immediate answer with actual reasons from someone I find to be fair and just, I would go ahead and give Christianity a second thought. If I got told at the begining of my life, by God, that "You are now entering life. You may either choose to live in a universe with heaven and hell but you must follow my laws, or in a universe in which you have but one life," I might choose the first and follow the rules. Otherwise, I gotta say that God telling me what to do is wrong. You have the choice, at any time, to leave this board. I do not have the choice to leave this life (without dying, in any case, and I think it is pretty clear that I don't actually desire this). Also, I don't believe in God. I am not denying God anything, save existence, I suppose. But even this is a semantic trick that is meaningless - I simply don't believe in God so have no reason to follow any of its rules.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
I did like this, BioBeing: “When I signed up on this site, I agreed to be moderated by extant moderators.

When I signed up to be born, I did not agree to be ruled by a non existent God.”

I have say, though, I don’t remember having ever signed up to be born...I remember a classic comic strip of Peanuts, in which Linus was decrying his lot in life after being picked on by his sister Lucy: "I didn't ask to be born! I didn't even get a chance to fill out an application!"

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by Mageth
We're all familiar with the Golden Rule. The "Platinum Rule" goes something like "Do unto others as they would have done unto them." The amalgam, which I refer to as the "Alloy Rule", goes something like "Apply the Platinum Rule if you know what someone wants done unto them. If you don't know, apply the Golden Rule." The so-called "Silver Rule" reads something like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If they screw you, screw 'em back. You can forgive them sometimes, but not all the time." Sounds harsh, but in game theory (i.e. the Prisoner's Dilemma), it has been shown to be more effective than the Golden Rule.

WMD

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Mageth

I too have a child, and while it is true that behavior is mainly conrolled "from above" for a child at an early age, there does come a point when (most) children in a good environment

Mageth:

What is a "good" environment? What makes it a good environment?

Aren't you begging the question?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by xorbie
See the problem with this entire thread is the incorrect assumption that atheists believe in God, and yet choose not to follow its rules.

Xer;

I'm afraid that you missed the point. I am not challenging the mods right to control their site, quite the opposite.

The argument is the inconsistency of atheists in recognizing the right of men to exercise authority over their "creation," but denying God this same right.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe or not. It has to do with asserting in debates over morality that God as creator cannot be an explanation for morality because he has not right to impose his standards on us.

Not "volunteering" to be born is just childish.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
When you have children (and thus you are their creator) do you then get to dictate right and wrong for them for their lives? Even if you could, is right and wrong for your children dictated as right and wrong merely because you are their creator?

When you understand why the answer to both of these is "no" then you will understand why God cannot dicate right and wrong merely because he is god alone.

DC

DC:

That's what comes from confusing categories.

You are NOT the creator of your children. You are merely the "transmitter" of life to them. You have no more power to create life than you have to destroy it.

On the other hand, God is the creator of life. He brought it from nothing.

Parents do not exercise authority over their children by right by by responsibility - to God.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Sol
"Why can atheists do what they deny to God?"

Your question is your own perception. No one can tell you why you view this the way you do, only you can determine that for yourself. I acknowlege your perception. I have understanding, compassion and respect for what you perceive and believe. Can you do the same for others (though they may be in direct opposition to your own)? The forum has a set of rules, they apply to everyone. We have choice to visit or not, we can participate and express our opposing views while acknowledging and respecting the rules and each other. At the end of the day, you or I or anyone else can walk away with something or nothing depending on our individual percepts.

Sol:

I'm sorry if you perceived my OP to be a challenge to the right of the mods to regulate their site. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, their right to do so is established by the authority and responsibility that men derive from God to govern those things which they make (not create).

Please try reading the OP again with this in mind.

[JTC]

Originally posted by theophilus
DC:

That's what comes from confusing categories.

You are NOT the creator of your children. You are merely the "transmitter" of life to them. You have no more power to create life than you have to destroy it.

On the other hand, God is the creator of life. He brought it from nothing.

Parents do not exercise authority over their children by right by by responsibility - to God.


Did you read anything anyone posted? You are making an assumtion the your god exists. Based on a book written by men and transmitted by men. Your saying godidit therefore we must obey :confused:

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by JTC
Did you read anything anyone posted? You are making an assumtion the your god exists. Based on a book written by men and transmitted by men. Your saying godidit therefore we must obey :confused:

I think this thread is about what it would be ok for God to do *if* he existed, rather than worrying about any actual existence.

[Keith Russell]

Theo, for 'God' to have authority over 'His' creations, 'He' would have to first exist.

But...'He' does not...

K

[xorbie]

Originally posted by theophilus
Xer;

I'm afraid that you missed the point. I am not challenging the mods right to control their site, quite the opposite.

The argument is the inconsistency of atheists in recognizing the right of men to exercise authority over their "creation," but denying God this same right.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe or not. It has to do with asserting in debates over morality that God as creator cannot be an explanation for morality because he has not right to impose his standards on us.

Not "volunteering" to be born is just childish.

No, you are missing the point. I don't think that men have the right to excercise authority over their "creation" unless they excercise it in ways I find just and good. This is why children are taken away from abusive parents. I find God, if what the bible says is true, to be the most abusive parent in the history of the world, and thus refuse to comply with the laws as laid down in the bible (unless I see fit for other reasons, as in the case of not killing, stealing, etc).

You are right it has nothing to do with God's existence, and I concede God's existence for the sake of argument. My point is that I feel that just because God says "X is good" does not make "X good." However, if God did exist, God would say that "X is good" because X is, in fact, good and God is the perfect example of goodness. Likewise, just because a parent says "if you, my child, does something I don't like, I will beat you" doesn't mean this is right or good, and it basically means the parent must cede any authority over the child to someone else.

Now, because authority over morality as a whole cannot be ceded to any other God, I, as a human, take it for myself. In fact, all humans do. Some give it back to society, and say "I will follow the law. The law is good." Some give it back to nature, and do what they think is "natural." Others form Utilitarian concepts.

The point here is that due to the fact that I think the only concept of God that actually has a set of morality is morally bankrupt himself (and thus not even a God), and because I feel to see any other God who does in fact have a superior set of morals, I take authority over morality to be mine. This is to say if there was another God,even whose existence was unproved, that put forth a system of morality I found to be "good and just," I would in fact agree that said God could have moral authority over me, so long as it did in fact exist and was in fact my creator.

[miscreant]

Originally posted by theophilus
DC:

That's what comes from confusing categories.

You are NOT the creator of your children. You are merely the "transmitter" of life to them. You have no more power to create life than you have to destroy it.

On the other hand, God is the creator of life. He brought it from nothing.

Parents do not exercise authority over their children by right by by responsibility - to God.

This is laughable. You're comparing god's authority over people to administrators authority over an online bulletin board and then accusing someone else of confusing categories?! Especially when the comparison being used is more comparable to what our relationship with god would be if he existed.

Like a parent to a child, if god existed and was our creator, the following would be true:

- We had no input as to whether or not we were brought into this world.

- We are sentient beings who can and will make our own decisions and choices

- As has been stated, being in a position of power means that god, if he so wanted, could punish us for not obeying him. However, as he has never even shown himself to exist, I'm not about to just follows silly rules you or somebody else makes up just because you claim to be gods messenger. If god exists, wants me to follow his rules, and is as all powerful as you claim he is, then he is quite capable of letting me know himself without using the unreliable people I see in this world pushing hundreds of different versions of what they think is 'the one religion'.

- Being ABLE to punish us for disobeying him, does NOT make him morally justified to do so any more than any child abusing parent is justified in beating their child for any old reason just because they are in the position of authority.

I tend to think the major question here though is one more of morality. If for example I create a robot that becomes sentient, what you're suggesting is that, even if the robot poses no threat to me or anyone else, I can shut off, and effectively kill, that lifeform simply because I created it. I disagree with this. Once I've created something that is a thinking feeling being, I don't believe I'd have the right to kill it just because it was created by me any more than my parents have the right to kill me because they bred and raised me. It's murder either way.

miscreant

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by theophilus
In fact, their right to do so is established by the authority and responsibility that men derive from God to govern those things which they make (not create).

No, their ability to do so is given them by their knowledge of the passwords to access those functions. They acquired that knowledge from some place other than from a god. There is nothing else that gives them the ability to do so.

If the moderators are too draconian with the power they have granted themselves, the user base will stop coming to the forums. Only the user base can decide this.

It is not so with your god. In your theology, everyone must remain logged in and no one gets to opt-out, except at the Moderator's whim.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by xorbie
No, you are missing the point. I don't think that men have the right to excercise authority over their "creation" unless they excercise it in ways I find just and good. This is why children are taken away from abusive parents. I find God, if what the bible says is true, to be the most abusive parent in the history of the world, and thus refuse to comply with the laws as laid down in the bible (unless I see fit for other reasons, as in the case of not killing, stealing, etc).

You are right it has nothing to do with God's existence, and I concede God's existence for the sake of argument. My point is that I feel that just because God says "X is good" does not make "X good." However, if God did exist, God would say that "X is good" because X is, in fact, good and God is the perfect example of goodness. Likewise, just because a parent says "if you, my child, does something I don't like, I will beat you" doesn't mean this is right or good, and it basically means the parent must cede any authority over the child to someone else.

Now, because authority over morality as a whole cannot be ceded to any other God, I, as a human, take it for myself. In fact, all humans do. Some give it back to society, and say "I will follow the law. The law is good." Some give it back to nature, and do what they think is "natural." Others form Utilitarian concepts.

The point here is that due to the fact that I think the only concept of God that actually has a set of morality is morally bankrupt himself (and thus not even a God), and because I feel to see any other God who does in fact have a superior set of morals, I take authority over morality to be mine. This is to say if there was another God,even whose existence was unproved, that put forth a system of morality I found to be "good and just," I would in fact agree that said God could have moral authority over me, so long as it did in fact exist and was in fact my creator.

This was a metaphysical question, not a question of God's qualifications, as evaluated by his creation, to govern his creation.

However, I will say this; you have assumed morality throughout you post as an "existant" thing to which even God may be held accountable; an objectively existant thing, but that cannot be sustained on a purely materialistic/naturalistic foundation..

Surely, you cannot hold that God is subject to your personal idea of what is right and wrong. Second, if there is goodness in the world, then God would be just as responsible for that as for the evil you think you see lurking around every corner.

But that is not the point. You do not "obey" the rules of this site because you agree with them. You follow them because you recognize the right of the mods to set and enforce rules just because they started the site.

It must follow that if God "started" life, he, by the same reasoning, must have the right to direct his creation. Not to mention, that rights are purely subjective in a naturalistic environment and cannot be claimed absolutely.

I will not continue in this direction as there are plenty of other places where this has been and is being argued.

[miscreant]

Originally posted by theophilus
But that is not the point. You do not "obey" the rules of this site because you agree with them. You follow them because you recognize the right of the mods to set and enforce rules just because they started the site.

It must follow that if God "started" life, he, by the same reasoning, must have the right to direct his creation. Not to mention, that rights are purely subjective in a naturalistic environment and cannot be claimed absolutely.

This is a bad analogy. I can quite easily disobey the rules of this board, I will simply be banned from the board. I know the consequences of such action. On the other hand, if I disobey what YOU say are the rules of god, I have no way to determine whether you're right, or whether the proponents of islam are right, or the proponents of the greek gods are right until after it's too late. You all have conflicting beliefs, and from what I can tell, any revelation that I may happen to have is just as valid as the supposed revelations of the different religions you're pushing. So once again you just go in a circle because you have to prove that a) god exists and b) it is your god, before this little thought exercise has any meaning.

miscreant

[theophilus]

Everyone:

Here's my OP. Please show me where I "assumed" the existence of God.
It can't be merely because I asked a question that involved God. If that were the case, you'd all be assuming the existence of God nearly everytime you post.

It was purely a theoretical question based on atheistic arguments I have encountered which did not involve "whether" or not God actually existed.

"I have recently received "friendly warnings" about a couple of posts which were deemed to be out of harmony with the site rules. I accpeted this, and am trying to conform as best I can.

But this has raised an interesting question:

If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

If you want to respond, please understand that the issue here is AUTHORITY, not motivation or anything else."

[miscreant]

Originally posted by theophilus
If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

The mods have the power to enforce their rules. As far as I've seen god either a) has not set any rules in a way that is obvious to me (except for the physical laws I can't seem to violate no matter how hard I flap my arms), or b) does not enforce his rules by any observable way.

Either way I have no idea what the rules are. They are various groups that run around claiming to know, but most of the ones I've met can't give me a good explination of how they know that doesn't comes third, fourth, or nth hand.

miscreant

[Keith Russell]

Theo, you keep saying that, sans 'God', there can be no absolute, objective morality.

How do you define 'absolute', or 'objective'?

I don't view morality as absolute (but I do view it as objective).

Morality isn't intrinsic to the world, existing apart from human beings. Neither is it utterly subjective, created entirely by human whim, apart from reality.

Morality is objective, because it is an evaluation made by individual human beings, based on our individual perceptions of reality.

I think that you, when you claim that a 'God-given' morality is objective, are actually speaking of an intrinsic morality.

K

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by theophilus
"I have recently received "friendly warnings" about a couple of posts which were deemed to be out of harmony with the site rules. I accpeted this, and am trying to conform as best I can.

But this has raised an interesting question:

If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

If you want to respond, please understand that the issue here is AUTHORITY, not motivation or anything else."

You compared your god to the moderators of the IIDB. The moderators exist and can actually ban people, edit their posts, etc. For your comparison to have validity, you must assume your god exists and has power over its domain, like the moderators exist and have power over theirs.

Your comparison also fails to account for the fact that no one has to post at IIDB, so no one has to be banned for saying what they want to say, even if it violates IIDB rules - so long as they say it somewhere other than IIDB. The situation with your god, assuming it exists, is not comparable. No one can opt-out of being judged in violation of your god's rules, since god is the Moderator of the entire universe, according to your theology.

[Sol]

Originally posted by theophilus
Sol:

I'm sorry if you perceived my OP to be a challenge to the right of the mods to regulate their site. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, their right to do so is established by the authority and responsibility that men derive from God to govern those things which they make (not create).

Please try reading the OP again with this in mind.

I'm quite clear. You are dodging my observation and evading my question. What difference does it make where we each think this right derives? Can we coexist respectfully? I think we can, if we can acknowledge our differences.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
You are NOT the creator of your children. You are merely the "transmitter" of life to them. You have no more power to create life than you have to destroy it.

On the other hand, God is the creator of life. He brought it from nothing.

Parents do not exercise authority over their children by right [but] by responsibility - to God. It's amusing, then, that God avoids the same responsibility in the outcomes of judicial cases of child support. Why do human fathers, who merely "transmit" God's creation of life, get stuck with the child support bill? God appears to be the ultimate "deadbeat dad" in this case. If it's the human father's "free will" choice to produce a child which the father cannot or cares not to support, why should that take precedence over God's intentions to create life, "transmitted" by the father?

WMD

[xorbie]

theophilus

You seem to misunderstand how people since about 1700 have been viewing morality (us enlightened folks, anyway). Even if God does exist, X is good because X is somehow good, not because God said so. If God decided, just for a good laugh, that rape would be good today, would rape be good? No. I may not completely understand the notions of "good" and "bad", I might not have a perfectly formulated system of morality, but I have a foggy notion of what it is, and rape does not qualify as "good" no matter how I look at it. Now, God has some pretty funky laws in the Bible. I happen to disagree with some of them.

So I will repeat: I do not follow what the mods say just because they say it. I would not allow parents to abuse children just because they are the creators. I post here because I happen to think that the mods are all around jolly fun folk, and because I happen to agree with their judgement. I a mod deleted or edited a post and I felt it was unfair, I might ask him or her for an explanation. God does not seem to offer this service.

What you are proposing is little more than a twisted "might makes right" argument: God made us so he can do whatever he wants, too bad if we disagree. Well, guess what? You do realize that if it was Satan that had created us, your argument would mean that he would be right to toast us all nice and good if so he wished. I hope this clears things up a bit.

[Wayne Delia]

Originally posted by theophilus
Sol:

I'm sorry if you perceived my OP to be a challenge to the right of the mods to regulate their site. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, their right to do so is established by the authority and responsibility that men derive from God to govern those things which they make (not create). That's quite odd. Man's right to govern things is established by God, and cannot come from anywhere else. God's right to govern things is established... er... well, uh, suppose we talk about something else right now. How 'bout that hurricane coming up?

If God obtains a right to govern His creations, then one cannot say that man cannot obtain a right to govern his own creations from anywhere else but God.

WMD

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Sol
I'm quite clear. You are dodging my observation and evading my question. What difference does it make where we each think this right derives? Can we coexist respectfully? I think we can, if we can acknowledge our differences.

Sol:

You're just begging the question. You ask "what difference does it make ... can we coexist respectfully." as if respectful coexistence is some ultimate value to which we all should be striving. How is that so?

Please don't engage in moral regress, i.e., it's necessary for society to survive which is necessary for the race to survive.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
That's quite odd. Man's right to govern things is established by God, and cannot come from anywhere else. God's right to govern things is established... er... well, uh, suppose we talk about something else right now. How 'bout that hurricane coming up?

If God obtains a right to govern His creations, then one cannot say that man cannot obtain a right to govern his own creations from anywhere else but God.

WMD

This is the difficulty posed by theological ignorance (nothing personal).

God does not "obtain" or "derive" anything. As the source of all things, this is impossible.

So, you're back to where you started.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by theophilus
Sol:

You're just begging the question. You ask "what difference does it make ... can we coexist respectfully." as if respectful coexistence is some ultimate value to which we all should be striving. How is that so?

What if he's just asking you because it's what he values? If he makes a persuasive argument for why you should agree with him and cooperate with his request, why wouldn't you agree and cooperate? Are you trying to tell us that you cannot be persuaded that respectful coexistence is worth striving for, just on its own merits, even if only tentatively, as perceived by a congregation of subjective consciousnesses?

Can you be persuaded of anything without being shown the tie-in to god's purpose?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by xorbie
theophilus

You seem to misunderstand how people since about 1700 have been viewing morality (us enlightened folks, anyway).

Does that include the folks from the French Revolution. How about the Marxists?

Even if God does exist, X is good because X is somehow good, not because God said so.

But that begs the question. How is it established that X is "somehow" good - that doesn't sound very enlightened; sounds kind of superstitious.

If God decided, just for a good laugh, that rape would be good today, would rape be good? No. I may not completely understand the notions of "good" and "bad", I might not have a perfectly formulated system of morality, but I have a foggy notion of what it is, and rape does not qualify as "good" no matter how I look at it.

Well, that's pure subjectivism on your part. What if, by the same criteria, I decide that rape IS good? Who's to judge between us? The majority? That's not morality.

Besides, God's laws are not arbitrary or capricious," Let's see, today I think rape should be okay." God's laws are a reflection of his purpose in creation. The do not change because he does not change. You're not talking about the Christian God; you talking about a "straw-god."

Now, God has some pretty funky laws in the Bible. I happen to disagree with some of them.

And that matters because you are ??? God?

So I will repeat: I do not follow what the mods say just because they say it.

But that is manifestly false. If you don't follow what they say, they'll kick you off the site (or some other sanction).

I would not allow parents to abuse children just because they are the creators.

And your authority for allowing or not allowing comes from where??

I post here because I happen to think that the mods are all around jolly fun folk, and because I happen to agree with their judgement. I a mod deleted or edited a post and I felt it was unfair, I might ask him or her for an explanation. God does not seem to offer this service.

You might ask for an explanation and they might give one but that is irrelevant to their authority to set and enforce rules.

It is only your ignorance of the Bible that prevents you from understanding the reason. You can't fault God for this. I suppose you want a personal answer. Well, why should he agree to that when you have not accepted the answers he's already provided?

It you are proposing is little more than a twisted "might makes right" argument: God made us so he can do whatever he wants, too bad if we disagree.

This is a fallacious argument. You speak as if the creature and the creator are ontologically equal. You also presume to impose your subjective view of right and wrong on the infinite, omniscient, creator of the universe.

Well, guess what? You do realize that if it was Satan that had created us, your argument would mean that he would be right to toast us all nice and good if so he wished.

Besides being another expression of theological ignorance (if Satan created us, then God wouldn't be God) you haven't said anything. Yes, if Satan had created you, he would still have the "right" as the source of all being, to do with you as he pleased.

The real question is, by what "right" would you object? If he created you, you could only be whatever he made you to be.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Not likely.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Theo, you keep saying that, sans 'God', there can be no absolute, objective morality.

How do you define 'absolute', or 'objective'?

Pick any dictionary.

I don't view morality as absolute (but I do view it as objective).

Now, you're the one who need to define his terms. How can it be one without the other.

Morality isn't intrinsic to the world, existing apart from human beings. Neither is it utterly subjective, created entirely by human whim, apart from reality.

Well, now you're just engaging in equivocation without specifying what you mean by morality.

Morality is objective, because it is an evaluation made by individual human beings, based on our individual perceptions of reality.

Please explain how this is NOT pure subjectivism. You are just begging the question. Morality is ... an evaluation. Of course, it is an evaluation. The question is by what standard are the evaluations made. You must assert that there is a prior value by which morality is judged.

I think that you, when you claim that a 'God-given' morality is objective, are actually speaking of an intrinsic morality.

K

Well, yes I'm actually speaking of both. It is objective for his creatures just because it is extrinsic to them and it is intrinsic because if is an element of the created order, not something added on after the fact.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by xorbie
You are right it has nothing to do with God's existence, and I concede God's existence for the sake of argument. My point is that I feel that just because God says "X is good" does not make "X good."

and that's because you have your own standard of what is good which came from ??????

However, if God did exist, God would say that "X is good" because X is, in fact, good and God is the perfect example of goodness. Likewise, just because a parent says "if you, my child, does something I don't like, I will beat you" doesn't mean this is right or good, and it basically means the parent must cede any authority over the child to someone else.

No, this is not the same at all. God is revealled as perfect, infallible and, as the creator, his laws are implanted as part of the created order. We know that killing is wrong because we have a "sense" of morality. That's just the point.

Parent's are not infallible and do not "own" their children.

Now, because authority over morality as a whole cannot be ceded to any other God, I, as a human, take it for myself.

You cannot "take" what doesn't belong to you - that's called stealing or usurpation.

In fact, all humans do. Some give it back to society, and say "I will follow the law. The law is good." Some give it back to nature, and do what they think is "natural." Others form Utilitarian concepts.

The point here is that due to the fact that I think the only concept of God that actually has a set of morality is morally bankrupt himself (and thus not even a God), and because I feel to see any other God who does in fact have a superior set of morals, I take authority over morality to be mine. This is to say [b]if there was another God,even whose existence was unproved, that put forth a system of morality I found to be "good and just," I would in fact agree that said God could have moral authority over me, so long as it did in fact exist and was in fact my creator.

But that is certainly meaningless. "If a god existed who had a morality with which I agreed, then I'd LET him have authority over me." That would be no kind of god and it wouldn't be his morality, it would be yours.

You judge God to be evil because you think what you see in the Bible is inconsistent with moral goodness. What you fail to acknowledge, and what makes you position invalid, is that after the Fall, God was dealing with man as a sinful, rebellious creation. He was not dealing with man in some state of innocence or neutrality but as a creature in an active state of rebellion.

It's ironic that you would challenge God's authority to prescribe morality; what was the Serpent's appeal to Eve to violate God's prohibition, "you shall be as gods, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL." In other words, you'll be your own authority.

If you're going to use the Bible to indite God, you need to take it in context if you want to be intellectually honest.

[xorbie]

theophilus

But that begs the question. How is it established that X is "somehow" good - that doesn't sound very enlightened; sounds kind of superstitious.

Oh jeez, that's rich. That's good. That's hilarious. :notworthy

Oh wait... you were serious. Let me get this straight, some God thinks it is ok to burn down entire villages because someone is gay, and this is good because God said so. I believe that there is something wrong with this. And I am being superstitious? Try agian.

Well, that's pure subjectivism on your part. What if, by the same criteria, I decide that rape IS good? Who's to judge between us? The majority? That's not morality.

Again. God kills people. This seems wrong to me, and I am pretty certain this is moraly true. For someone who believes in God, to deny me this right is oddly obtuse. If you decide that rape is good, you are free to try to find a society in which rape is legal. However, you cannot do it in a society in which rape is illegal. Just like I am free to post here at IIDB instead of CF or RR.

But that is manifestly false. If you don't follow what they say, they'll kick you off the site (or some other sanction).

You keep ignoring the fact that I only joined because I agree with their judgement and their rules. Please adress this, as it is what just about everyone here is pointing to as the flaw in your argument.

This is a fallacious argument. You speak as if the creature and the creator are ontologically equal. You also presume to impose your subjective view of right and wrong on the infinite, omniscient, creator of the universe.

No, I do not. The problem with this argument is that you act as though God has actually spoken to me, and proven that he is infinite, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipowerful and my creator and I'm just saying "you know what, I don't think I will do what you tell me." You seem to misunderstand that the very reason I don't beleive in the Christian God is that I don't see the version of morality as put forth in the bible as consistent with an infinite, omnisient, creator of the universe. Just because some piece of paper tells me it is God, doesn't mean I am obligated to agree. Moreover, if God proved to me that I would go to hell for disagreeing with him, I would in fact act in accordance with God's rules, but still might disagree with them if I find them fundamentally wrong.

There is a middle ground between total lack of knowledge of objective morality and a perfect system of objective morality. I have innate knowledge of what "good" is, and while it may change slightly, and while my definition of how it is good might change, I still think killing is wrong and rape is wrong. And while some deviants do in fact exist that take joy in killing and raping, I think they have severe issues and I am very comfortable in calling them objectively wrong.

You might ask for an explanation and they might give one but that is irrelevant to their authority to set and enforce rules.
It is only your ignorance of the Bible that prevents you from understanding the reason. You can't fault God for this. I suppose you want a personal answer. Well, why should he agree to that when you have not accepted the answers he's already provided?


Oh sorry. Here I was thinking God was a perfect entity that would be kind enough to accomodate people who legitametly seek answers to life's mysteries. I recall when I was younger (like maybe 8 or 9), I would stay up for hours wondering about heaven and hell, and life after death. Why didn't God answer my questions? I wanted some proof, I wanted to be sure because I was troubled by the concept of death, and the death of my parents. But did God ever come to me and allay my fears? No. The mods, OTOH, are willing to actually answer any questions I have. I have good reason to believe that it was actually them, and not a sneaking third party that wrote the rules for this site, reason which does not exist for the bible. I can actually seek a personal answer from them. This is not at all irrelevant to their authority, because I would not give them this authority to rule over me unless I was assured of it.

What we seem to disagree on (among other things) is that once a human reaches the age in which he is capable of thinking for him or her self, he or she must free submit to be being ruled. I freely submit to being ruled by the American government by staying in the country. I freely submit to be ruled by the mods of this site. I do not freely submit to be freely ruled by God, unless it proves that it exists, and that either it has the power to punish me (this is not to say that might makes right, but might does make obedience) or it is, in fact, perfectly good.

[Keith Russell]

Theo said:
"Well, yes I'm actually speaking of both. It is objective for his creatures just because it is extrinsic to them and it is intrinsic because if is an element of the created order, not something added on after the fact."

Then, point me to these moral laws, intrinsic to nature, and 'extrinsic to' 'His' creatures, please.

K

[Calzaer]

You have no more power to create life than you have to destroy it.

What an odd statement. I have plenty of power to destroy life. I step on bugs, and they die. That "life" doesn't seem to spring up somewhere else, so far as we can tell. I can uproot trees (and they die), I can run over small animals with my car (and they die), I could even stab someone through the heart with a rusty spork (and they'd die). Collectively, we completely wipe out entire species of life left and right.

So if we have just as much power to create life as we have to destroy life, we can obviously create life pretty easily.

[MadMez]

Hello theophilus!

Your OP..What's the difference?

When one subscribes to a forum one lurks, posts, posits, and follows debates. The mod berates, edits, bans and evicts threads.

When one subscribes to a religion one learns, prays, gets saved and follows dogma. The god guides, selects, banishes and evicts thought.

Both similar, except only one is real. And, it seems to me, your tone in the OP means you've started to conclude which one.

Welcome to Athiesm!

[Gregg]

Originally posted by theophilusYou might ask for an explanation and they might give one but that is irrelevant to their authority to set and enforce rules.
It is only your ignorance of the Bible that prevents you from understanding the reason. You can't fault God for this. I suppose you want a personal answer. Well, why should he agree to that when you have not accepted the answers he's already provided?

You: "God, what should I do if You send me a holy visitor, and my neighbor wants to use him for a butt monkey?"

God: "Offer him your teenage, virginal (you hope) daughter to rape instead."

You: "God, You told me that that Victorian mansion on the hill is my Promised House. But there's already a family living in it. What should I do?"

God: "Kill all the men and boys in the household and sell the old and/or homely women into slavery. You can keep the pretty young virgins for sex."

You: "God, I'm bald, and the other day some snotty kids made a remark about how the reflection off my scalp was blinding them. Suggestions?"

God: "I would gladly send a she-bear or two to maul them, but there are none roaming freely in suburban Cleveland. So I give you permission to blow their f*cking heads off with a shotgun."

You: "God, I want to leave home and follow You, but my pagan daddy won't let me go. What should I do?"

God: "In the good old days I would have sent him all sorts of horrible plagues--boils over his entire body, locusts devouring his lawn, blood in his toilets and bathtubs--but hardened his heart at the same time so he wouldn't let you go. Finally, I would have killed his firstborn, but you're his firstborn. Anyway I don't really do big-time miracles anymore, so, you have my permission to drown the stubborn SOB in the tub."


Iggerance of the Bible is no excuse!

[Stephen T-B]

From theophilus
“God's laws are not arbitrary or capricious..."

Just interested, theo - do you put your money in an interest yielding account? Have you ever bought stocks and shares?

[Rider]

Originally posted by theophilus


Not "volunteering" to be born is just childish.

So is the belief/faith in something that does not exist.

-Rider

[Just_An_Atheist]

"and that's because you have your own standard of what is good which came from ??????"

Are you misrepresenting him on purpose? He never said that he can account for "goodness" through purely natural means, but (I think) stating the Euthyphro Dilemma (which I'm sure we're all familiar with, but just stating it so that theophilus can take it on directly."

Is something good because God commands it, or does God command something because it is good?

If something is simply good because God command it, and nothing more, then "morality" is subjective to the whim of God. God could have commanded that rape would always be morally obligatory no matter what, and we would be morally obligated to commit rape whenever possible.

If God commands something because it is good, then there must be an independent system of morality that even God must obey. (If it was created by God, then morality is still only based on God's whim.) If you answered yes to the second question, then God did not create morality, it simply exists!

[EGGO]

*looks at all the sub-religions of christianity*

They tell me that I must follow THEIR rules of god too. They're contradictive to one another (being ok to dance and being not ok to dance is contradictive, in case someone will say "not really") And they also tell me it's his word.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you why I follow the rules here (other than common courtesy) than not following the word of the lord.

[Stephen T-B]

I don’t think theo’s going to answer my questions to him: “do you put your money in an interest yielding account? Have you ever bought stocks and shares?”
Perhaps that’s because he is aware that usury is a sin which almost every Christian commits on a regular basis, and one which allows most of the Christian world to function.
Yet he is able to tell us: “God's laws are not arbitrary or capricious..."

Seems to me that most Christians have a somewhat cavalier attitude to those which are a bit inconvenient.
What I’d like to know is: are they being immoral AND sinful, or just sinful, or just immoral. And how do they imagine god will punish them when their time’s up?

[Clutch]

Give the stuffed panda to whoever said, early on in this pointless thread, that the moderators exist, while is no reason to think there are any gods.

Perhaps theo just meant to ask, "If there was a god, then could atheists...?"

But the truth-value of subjunctive conditionals with unintelligible antecedents is not a very pressing concern. If there was a god? As my dear deceased Grand-Dad used to say, "If the queen had nuts, she'd be king."

Theo owes some reason to think there's a god. It's harder than troll-and-evade, theo, but you might find people would actually respect you for your effort.

[Daisy]

xorbie: So I will repeat: I do not follow what the mods say just because they say it.

theophilus:
But that is manifestly false. If you don't follow what they say, they'll kick you off the site (or some other sanction).

theo, you're confused here. You're proving xorbie's point: xorbie doesn't follow the mods' rule just because they say to, but because they will impose sanctions (we believe it because we've seen evidence of it). That's two different things, setting the rules and enforcing the rules.

We don't 'give' the mods authority - they have it. If your god wants authority, all he has to do is enforce it, preferably immediately, consistently and knowably.

[Supergirl]

Originally posted by theophilus
If God is not allowed to set the rules for his creatures and to punish those who do not comply (which I've been assured by those in the know here), then

Why can the administrators/moderators of this website set rules for those who post here?

What's the difference?

Very simple. The moderators exist!:banghead:

[Darth Dane]

When I signed up to be born, I did not agree to be ruled by a non existant God.

And you know this because you actually know where "you" were before being born?(also to the point of the sperm and egg meeting)

You can't claim to know what happens before your creation when you don't believe there is anything before creation right?

"When I signed up to be born" So do you claim to exist before being born?

[b]I did not agree to be ruled by a non existant God.[/i] Fair enough, You can't be ruled by something that doesn't exist.






DD - Love & Laughter