Hypothetical For Atheists

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
Full agreement. It happened

Full agreement. It happened to me. Took me 45+ years to dig it out of repressed, suppressed, and oppressed memories. But it did.

My question: What in fucking hell is wrong with you Absolutists that you feel you must rape and molest children?

Sorry. It just came out. The anger...

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
When someone thinks they know

When someone thinks they know the mind of god (who always seems to agree with them, isn't that curious?): they are capable of almost any horror. It morality's version of the blank check.

chimp3's picture
myusernamekghx: Why should I

myusernamekghx: Why should I be impressed with the god you created? Seems a rather flaccid god.

Sapporo's picture
I believe that torture,

I believe that torture, murder, and rape are wrong in any circumstance, but myusernamekthx disagrees because his conscience has no influence on his actions.

David Killens's picture
Any powerful entity that

Any powerful entity that promotes such horrors as killing children or slavery is not a god by definition, just a very powerful but very sick being.

There is no way I could adore or worship something so perverted and cruel.

Sheldon's picture
Jypothetically youve

Hypothetically you've described a being less moral than the humans it's created.

What's more it'd be a being that sat idly by whilst suffering on an unimaginable scale unfolded.

No human with any shred of decency would allow a child to be raped. Yet we can only infer such a deity does so repeatedly.

I'd want nothing to do with it.

Of course none of that is why I am an atheist.

As luckily no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for such a callous sadistic being.

Sapporo's picture
Let's say that for the sake

Let's say that for the sake of argument God really does exist; and by God I mean a maximally powerful pig fucker who created all of reality outside of Himself. What's more, this God is interested in His creations and wants people to freely enter into a relationship with Him.

OK. Let's say the aforementioned being exists.

And this being tells you to have sex with a pig.

Would you want to enter into a relationship with this God? How would you feel about this God's moral beliefs? Would it cause you to self-reflect upon your own moral beliefs?

CyberLN's picture
Concerning the OP:

Concerning the OP:

I read it a couple of times and I see no reason to obey this hypothetical being.

No where is there any indication that this being does things or advises it’s minions not / to do things based on morals. In fact, morality isn’t even defined in the OP. It merely asked about obedience. Heck, some pretty evil but powerful people have asked for obedience. Power and being the creator of something just does not automatically include making rules that result in what is beneficial.

Sapporo's picture
Petal Blossom refers to a

Petal Blossom refers to a Necessary Being (i.e. "god"), but then makes it a hypothetical. He refers to objective morality, but makes it clear that it is contingent on the whim of the Necessary Being.

Kataclismic's picture
Dude, I was done with the

Dude, I was done with the 'what ifs' after the first paragraph. No, none of that exists so it's a silly question. Another person's sexual exploits are really none of your business and I'd say assuming somehow that it is your business would be your first mistake.

I think sex with cows is wrong but I really don't care what you do in the barn as long as I don't have to witness it because I'm not going to sit and ponder what sort of feelings you get when you look into bovine eyes. I don't get them and that's all that matters.

David Killens's picture
Blindly following a set of

Blindly following a set of rules dictated by authority is not an automatic grant of morality. That was established during the .Nurbemberg War Crimes Trials

Sheldon's picture
Why are so many theists irony

Why are so many theists irony impaired. He opens a thread with the usual cliched collection of moronic negative stereotypes thesis try and paint atheists with by claiming they have no morals, then ends by claiming he'd have no problems killing a child.

I mean he's clearly dumber than the average bear, but surely even a the most retarded troll can see how moronic that turn around looks?

Or can he?

David Killens's picture
My assumption is that the

My assumption is that the immoral one comes from a culture of obedience to authority. It expected us to meekly listen and not challenge his perversions.

It is not used to people challenging statements on religion.

Bumble butt's picture
Interesting topic. I think

Interesting topic. I think people tend to react to rather than dive a little deeper into the discussion. I agree with most of you; what God would create homosexuality then condemn it? Seems so sadistic.
However, according to the Bible, this is a fallen world and because of Man sin we are now faced with this conundrum. I don’t pretend to understand it, and I don’t get angry or blame God for it either. I’m still trying to figure it all out.

David Killens's picture
@Bumble butt

@Bumble butt

Why do you not try to understand how your god made the things the way they are?

You are supposed to enjoy a loving relationship between you and your god. IMO this is a one-way relationship. One party is abusive, dismissive, and has never shown any sympathy for you. Your god could place cancer in you later today, and you just accept that? Why?

CyberLN's picture
Bumble butt, you wrote, “ and

Bumble butt, you wrote, “ and I don’t get angry or blame God for it either. ”

I don’t get angry at any god either....that’s because I don’t think there is one to get angry at.

I do, however, feel angry when people want to treat non-heterosexuals differently than heterosexuals in the public arena.

Qu@si's picture
"and I don’t get angry or

"and I don’t get angry or blame God"

how can you be mad at something that doesn't exist?

only insane people do that.... are you?

"what God would create"
don't ask us, ask who you think created this all....so much for you're omnipotent deity.

DawkinsDesciple's picture
So there is a God who is so

So there is a God who is so immensely powerful that he could create the entire universe. You expect me to believe that this being cares about the sexuality of humans? The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Humans have been around for roughly 200,000 of these years. There are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We are one species who live on one planet, in one solar system, in one tiny corner of one of these galaxies. A god who is this powerful and yet is concerned with humans sexual habits is not a god I want anything to do with. His priorities are clearly misplaced.

Another important point to make is that this god who created all mankind has set up a system in which he would have known from the beginning (Because he is all powerful) that homosexuality would proliferate in his creation. If he has an issue with homosexuality it would be entirely his fault. He would have botched the creation. If this hypothetical god is the god of the bible then presumably he is sending these homosexuals to suffer an eternity in hell. This makes him either incompetent or a raging psychopath.

Tin-Man's picture
@Dawkins

@Dawkins

Clear. Concise. Right on the money. Very nicely put. *clap-clap-clap-clap*

Sheldon's picture
" The universe is

" The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Humans have been around for roughly 200,000 of these years. There are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We are one species who live on one planet, in one solar system, in one tiny corner of one of these galaxies. "

That rather concise fact takes care of the fine tuning argument as well I'd say. A person would have to be pretty biased in favour of their beliefs in order to claim the universe was fine tuned for life rather life being fine tuned by evolution for this planet.

Good post, nothing to disagree with there at all.

myusernamekthx's picture
“So there is a God who is so

“So there is a God who is so immensely powerful that he could create the entire universe. You expect me to believe that this being cares about the sexuality of humans?”

Where’s the contradiction?

When a common animal attacks and kills another common animal, we don’t then arrest the animal, try it for murder, and then send it to jail. This is because common animals are not moral agents. But as you go up the food chain and come to human beings, all of a sudden, murder becomes relevant.

But based on your logic this shouldn’t be the case. You seem to believe that as a being becomes more intelligent, aware, or powerful, they then become less interested in morality. That’s obviously absurd; and it appears to be the complete opposite. One should expect God, a maximally powerful being, to be more interested in moral behavior than human beings are. And a maximally powerful being would better understand and perceive the consequences of moral decisions in the same way that you better understand and perceive the consequences of moral decisions compared to a squirrel.

“The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Humans have been around for roughly 200,000 of these years. There are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We are one species who live on one planet, in one solar system, in one tiny corner of one of these galaxies. A god who is this powerful and yet is concerned with humans sexual habits is not a god I want anything to do with. His priorities are clearly misplaced.”

Once again, I don’t see the contradiction here. Time is of no consequence to God. To Him 13.7 billion years and 1 year may as well be the same. Space and distance is of no consequence either. It doesn’t matter if we’re in the corner of a 13.7 billion year old universe or in the middle. It doesn’t matter if we’re a speck of sand on a beach or the beach itself. It would be all the same to a maximally powerful being.

“Another important point to make is that this god who created all mankind has set up a system in which he would have known from the beginning (Because he is all powerful) that homosexuality would proliferate in his creation. If he has an issue with homosexuality it would be entirely his fault.”

Not if human beings have free will. People aren’t forced to engage in homosexual behavior anymore than they are forced to murder. You’d have to say that God is at fault for giving human beings free will, but without free will there would be no meaning. We would be automatons and our actions would carry as much significance as an apple being pulled down to the ground by gravity. If God programmed a person to love Him and all other beings, unconditionally, is that really love? And if God programmed a person to kill any person it comes across, is that really murder? How could a person be held accountable (or given credit) for their actions if their actions were programmed?

Nyarlathotep's picture
myusernamekthx - Not if human

myusernamekthx - Not if human beings have free will. People aren’t forced to engage in homosexual behavior anymore than they are forced to murder.

This is the old attempt to have your cake and eat it too:

  • If anyone knows the future perfectly, then no one has free will.
  • If someone does not know the future perfectly, they are not omniscient (they are not the god the Christians tell us about).
myusernamekthx's picture
“If anyone knows the future

“If anyone knows the future perfectly, then no one has free will.”

That doesn’t follow. If I knew everything about your future, what you believed, what you thought, what you will do, etc., that wouldn’t magically take away from your free will. All that would follow is you being unable to surprise me with your free decisions.

“If someone does not know the future perfectly, they are not omniscient”

I don’t believe that’s true. It may be the case that knowing the future perfectly wouldn’t be included in the highest degree of knowledge that is logically possible. To give a parallel, God is normally defined as omnipotent, but that doesn’t mean he can make 2 + 2 = 91 or create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it. That’s why omnipotence in philosophical circles means maximally powerful or “being able to do anything that is logically possible.” In other words, knowing the future may not be logically possible.

Regardless, that doesn’t matter since there’s no good reason to believe that a person can’t have free will when another person knows what that person will freely decide.

Nyarlathotep's picture
myusernamekthx - It is really

myusernamekthx - It is really simple. If you know the outcome of my decisions (before I make them); then I didn't have a decision to start with; I was only fooling into believing I had a choice, I never actually had one. I've seen a lot of definitions for free will; but that excludes all of them.

This is why it is trying to have your cake and eat it too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

myusernamekthx - In other words, knowing the future may not be logically possible.

Yeap, but again; that is not the Christian god that most of us have had shoved down our throats for our entire lives. They told us god knew everything. I made this clear in my initial post on the matter, but you seemed to have missed it:

Nyarlathotep - If someone does not know the future perfectly, they are not omniscient (they are not the god the Christians tell us about).

Tin-Man's picture
@myusername Re: "... If God

@myusername Re: "... If God programmed a person to love Him and all other beings, unconditionally, is that really love?"

But telling somebody, "You will love me, or I will torture you horribly forever and ever," is most certainly the best way to get "true" and "unconditional" love from somebody. Right. Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

myusernamekthx's picture
“But telling somebody, "You

“But telling somebody, "You will love me, or I will torture you horribly forever and ever," is most certainly the best way to get "true" and "unconditional" love from somebody. Right. Got it. Glad we cleared that up.”

That’s right up there with “derrrr Christians believe dat there iz an old man in da sky”

If you’re going to attack theism or Christianity, then can you at least get what they believe straight?
The gist is human beings have free will and God has told them how to behave for their own sake, much like how parents will tell their children to look both ways before crossing a street or not to touch a hot stove.

You don’t have a problem with parents telling their children not to freely choose to touch hot stoves, right?

If God is real, then that would mean He is the source of all of reality. Naturally, what do you think the consequences would be for a person who mocks and freely chooses to cut themselves off from such a being? Just think about that for a moment. When a person freely chooses to jump into a bonfire even after they’ve been repeatedly warned by another person not to lest they be burned up, then who’s at fault when that person does jump into a bonfire? With free will comes responsibility.

arakish's picture
@myusernamekthx

@myusernamekthx

Tin-Man had it right. Saying I have free will, yet threatening me with eternal damnation and suffering is no way to get me to love anything.

rmfr

myusernamekthx's picture
"Saying I have free will, yet

"Saying I have free will, yet threatening me with eternal damnation and suffering is no way to get me to love anything."

That's a bizarre definition of the word "threatening."

If a child's parents tell her that she shouldn't eat antifreeze because it'd kill her, are the parents threatening her? Are they wrong for telling her that? And if you believe the parents are threatening her, is it wrong in this context?

And if a being is the sole source and sustainer of reality, then what are the natural consequences of freely choosing to cut yourself off from such a being?

Nyarlathotep's picture
myusernamekthx - If God is

myusernamekthx - If God is real, then that would mean He is the source of all of reality.

You forgot about: SuperGod™! For when your imaginary friend, needs an imaginary friend to create everything for him! Only $19.95 if you act now!

Tin-Man's picture
@myusername Re: "If you’re

@myusername Re: "If you’re going to attack theism or Christianity, then can you at least get what they believe straight?"

Oh, dear. My sincerest apologies to you. I thought I was using simple language to help you understand easier. Goodness gracious, it must have been too complicated for you. Please allow me to try again. This time I will use your parent analogy, since it seems to be a favorite of yours.

A mother has a child. The mother loves her child dearly. The mother wants her child to love her in return. Therefore, the mother goes into the kitchen and places a huge pot on the stove and fills it with cooking oil. The mother then brings the oil to a rolling boil. Then this kind, caring, loving mother gently and lovingly picks up her precious child, holds him directly over the boiling oil, and tells him in a cooing voice, "You know Mommy loves and cares about you very much. And Mommy wants you to lover her, too. But if you do not love and obey Mommy.... " *her voice now an angry yell*... "I WILL DROP YOUR LITTLE ASS INTO THIS BOILING OIL!!!" The mother then places the child back down on the floor and tells him in a sweet and happy voice, "Now run along and play, you little scamp. Mommy loves you."

See? I do understand. I hope I didn't use too many big words for you, though.

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.