Creation as private property.

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
UnKnown's picture
"Your statement, and your so

"Your statement, and your so called, disgusting hoky book is very immoral." - Then lets debate about it.

Talyyn's picture
NT + OT? It needs a new

NT + OT? It needs a new thread since it is general.

Cognostic's picture
God can do whatever he wants

God can do whatever he wants to his private property. I have no problem with that at all.... I don't believe in God so if the idiot actually ever really did something, we would finally have some evidence for his existence and then we would all know he was listening to us when we called him an ASSHOLE!!

UnKnown's picture
"God can do whatever he wants

"God can do whatever he wants to his private property." - You're one of the few atheists who I have seen/meet that believes that!

Cognostic's picture
It's SARCASM ----- I don't

It's SARCASM ----- I don't believe in God, Not your god, not anyone's god. So your asshole god can do anything it wants. It is going to have no effect at all on me or anyone else. And if he does show up, we can all call him "ASSHOLE" to his face.

arakish's picture
And I'll be first in line. I

And I'll be first in line. I already called dibs. Any god created by man is an ASSHOLE. And even if the "god" of the Bible or Qu'ran is real, either or both are the biggest ASSHOLES to ever exist.

"Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled brat." — Robert A. Heinlein

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog and Arakish

@Cog and Arakish

Whoa! Guys, guys, guys!.... You really shouldn't be calling god an "asshole" like that. It's rude. Remember, god is not just your average everyday asshole. He is a much grander asshole than that, and it should be recognized. The proper term to use is "His Assholiness". Now, show some respect. you barbarians. Sheesh!

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

"The proper term to use is "His Assholiness"."

Actually I prefer the more applicable term of "Fucking Immoral Shit-Head Monster Asshole!"

rmfr

Diotrephes's picture
Cognostic,

Cognostic,

According to the biblical fairy tale everyone, including the Pope, will curse God and asshole will probably be the nicest description of him.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Given we know how humans are

Given we know how humans are 'created', how our planet was created and how our solar system was created..

How did 'god' create anyone? At what point does he intervene? How does he do it?
Is there even a shred of credible evidence to support the assertion?

And if so, How do you know it was the god you believe in?

UnKnown's picture
What I am asking to argue

What I am asking to argue about is not if God creating anyone, or how God created us, but assuming he did, are his private property and if so, whether he has the right to do with us as he wished.

Sheldon's picture
"I want his debate to be

"I want his debate to be about the idea of whether God can do as he wishes to his private property, not whether he actually did make creation."

Leaving aside the fact no evidence can be demonstrated for any deity or for creationism. In a purely hypothetical scenario, if a deity creates sentient beings for its own amusement and claim the right to do whatever itwishes we can only make the subjective observation that this deity would be less moral than humans.

For once a parent analogy is apropos. Would you think it moral for a parent to do whatever itwishes to a child it created whilst it remained a child?

If you breed puppies you don't get to do whatever you want to them, as this is considered cruel and therefore immoral.

If you're going to create a fictional deity you might at least conjure one that has better morals than 21st century humans.

UnKnown's picture
With the parent and child

With the parent and child relationship example, there is a difference between parents creating children and God creating the universe. This difference being that God creates from nothing (assuming he exists), but parents don't. Would this make a difference in the morality and justification of this?

LostLocke's picture
I think the parent/child

I think the parent/child example is apropos.
But, ignoring that, god having a right to do what he wants to us is secondary to what he *chooses* to do to us. Even if he has the "right" to do these things, he chooses to do them.
That makes this creator god evil. Full stop.

UnKnown's picture
How is having the right to do

How is having the right to do something not immoral, but doing it is?

David Killens's picture
You are making an awful lot

You are making an awful lot of assumptions. We could indulge in speculating whether trolls dye their hair.

Your god has proven itself many times to be an insanely cruel and barbaric creature. Only a spineless fool would bend knee to that abomination.

xenoview's picture
@unknown

@unknown
What objective evidence do you have that a god exist?

According to your bible, god only created Adam and Eve. I believe you got here just like me, your parents having sex.

LogicFTW's picture
@Unknown Original post:

@Unknown Original post:

Well, the children are his property, he can as he wishes as they belong to him, he made them.

Okay so stepping aside the whole "does god even exist" question, if god made all children, can he do whatever he wants? Including having die of terrible bone cancer just a few years after they are born. Well I know most theist put their god idea on a pedestal that is above morality, right and wrong etc. So I would think the average theist is okay with this.

However if we go by: if humans create children, (ya know the one we have all kinds of powerful obvious evidence for!) and the mother "creates" the child in her womb with the catalyst/help of male dna contribution, most theist in general state unequivocally no. You cannot do whatever you want to a child, not even close, even though a mother essentially created a child within her own body, she is not allowed to abort the child, and not allowed to cause injury to their child. Most certainly not allowed to kill a child on a whim after the child is born. So the god creator idea is granted special allowance and privilege to do whatever he wants, but not human people that actually create, carry, feed, protect etc, in many theist minds absolutely do not have the right to do whatever they want with their private "property" that they created themselves.

I want his debate to be about the idea of whether God can do as he wishes to his private property, not whether he actually did make creation.

Please do understand stating this is; roughly akin to saying: "can santa decide who is naughty or nice, is that fair?" But then state let's assume for sake of argument santa is real and not debate if santa is real or not, and not specify which Santa of which culture we are talking about eithir.

Worse still is "god" is so ambiguous. Which god are we talking about? Are we talking about the flying spaghetti monster? Zeus? Christian god #881352?

So essentially we are left arguing the merits of a highly vague and dubious idea, it can be some fun to idly talk about but it leads nowhere. No insight or knowledge is gained except for another wow the various god ideas are dumb and have large logical and now ethical/morality holes.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Bad Santa's picture
It is always so hard for me

It is always so hard for me to believe that there are still individuals that hold such appalling and bat-shit crazy believes...

Well, the children are his property, he can as he wishes as they belong to him, he made them.

Let me see if I got it right. So, your god strikes a child with cancer, degenerative disease or any other painful ailment, just for the fun of it, and then sits back on his throne and watches with amusement how the child suffers, like a soap opera???? Is that his entertainment?
Because this is exactly what you're suggesting!

Do you even realize how awful and hideous this idea is??

UnKnown's picture
"Is that his entertainment?"

"Is that his entertainment?" - Basically it is punishment. But that is a topic for another day which I will not further entertain on this thread.

Bad Santa's picture
@UnKnown you said:

@UnKnown you said:
quoted:

Basically it is punishment

Now, you tell me what reason your god would have to inflict punishment of death from bone cancer for example on a few year's old child?
Answer the question, what reason?...

Otherwise,if you believe that, you ARE an utterly immoral person and your imaginary god is a complete psychotic mass murderer!

UnKnown's picture
Long story short, God made

Long story short, God made mankind perfect, we fucked up, we are made fucked up, that is wrong, this is punishable according to the bible. Now this creates a whole other thread about whether this is correct. Any additions to this, that don't follow the original thread I will not follow up on.

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - ...God made mankind

UnKnown - ...God made mankind perfect, we fucked up...

Perfect things don't fuck up.

UnKnown's picture
As in God made mankind

As in God made mankind without any blemish, but he gave us the choice to follow him or to not (i.e. fuck up). So when he made us, we were perfect, but with potential to fuck up.

arakish's picture
@ UnKnown

@ UnKnown

Do you have any OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back up that assertion?

Otherwise, the Five Razors:

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
  5. Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.
  • Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit, scoop it up and sling it back.

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Unknown Re: "So when he

@Unknown Re: "So when he made us, we were perfect, but with potential to fuck up."

LMAO... Hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but you DO realize (I hope) that statement totally negates itself... *shaking head in amusement*...

Tin-Man's picture
*announcing to forum*.... Hey

*announcing to forum*.... Hey, everybody! I just finished building the world's first TOTALLY PERFECT aircraft engine. Absolutely EVERYTHING in it is perfect. Gonna start mass producing them immediately. Air travel will be safer now than it has ever been before. Oh, and here's the best part... I will install a tiny little detonation switch in every single engine. And the control boards for the engine will be programmed to randomly decide whether or not they want to activate that switch during mid flight. The engine would then explode catastrophically, causing the plane and its passengers to plummet to the earth in a hellish ball of fire. Yep! Absolutely PERFECT!... *beaming smile*...

Stone Jade's picture
"I want his debate to be

"I want his debate to be about the idea of whether God can do as he wishes to his private property, not whether he actually did make creation."

God can do whatever he wants with his private property. It seems that Stephen Fry is pointing out that a compassionate, all-loving god who claims to be a healer WOULDN'T let children have bone cancer. The fact that bone-cancer exists shows that if god exists, he is utterly utterly evil.

So yeah, a god that is willing to seeing children suffer, though he has the power to remove it, can do whatever he wants.

UnKnown's picture
How is having the right to do

How is having the right to do something moral, but exercising that right immoral?

NewSkeptic's picture
A really stupid exercise. Of

A really stupid exercise. Of course an omnipotent being can do whatever it wants, by definition. This does not, by definition, make its acts moral.

If you also assign this being omnibenevolence, then you have a logical conundrum.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.