Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

if christian god existed, would he be a cruel god?

Some more examples of the extreme cruelty god allows to exist according to the Bible @thefrickouttaherelol @cubester1232 @ALucasM:

A rapist is only punished to death if he rapes a virgin teen girl if she's already the property of another man. Otherwise if she's single then he should pay 50 shekels to her father and then marry her(!) without being able to divorce her (and there's no law against raping a younger girl or an older one, or raping boys) (Deuteronomy 22, 25-28, in simple English for easy reference)

Then there's Lot and his 2 daughters - first the part where Lot suggests that a mob of people rape them instead of the 2 "angels" that are guests in their house (instead of praying to god to take them back to sky, or to murder the would-be-rapists like he did with the 42 kids in the Elijah story), and then later when the 2 daughters make him drunk and then rape him so that they can continue the family line and follow the "be fruitful and multiply" thing. And of course none of them are punished for anything. Well, other than Lot's wife who looked backwards. That horrible woman.)

Then there's the whole Job story, for god's immorality

Oh and there's also the loving god's idea of good parenting - be violent towards your children and then just murder them if they misbehave (regardless of the reason)

(Proverbs 13:24 / Proverbs 23:12 / Deuteronomy 21:18 / Leviticus 20:9)

Some more examples of the extreme cruelty god allows to exist according to the Bible @thefrickouttaherelol @cubester1232 @ALucasM: A rapist is only punished to death if he rapes a virgin teen girl if she's already the property of another man. Otherwise if she's single then he should pay 50 shekels to her father and then marry her(!) without being able to divorce her (and there's no law against raping a younger girl or an older one, or raping boys) (Deuteronomy 22, 25-28, in simple English for easy reference) Then there's Lot and his 2 daughters - first the part where Lot suggests that a mob of people rape them instead of the 2 "angels" that are guests in their house (instead of praying to god to take them back to sky, or to murder the would-be-rapists like he did with the 42 kids in the Elijah story), and then later when the 2 daughters make him drunk and then rape him so that they can continue the family line and follow the "be fruitful and multiply" thing. And of course none of them are punished for anything. Well, other than Lot's wife who looked backwards. That horrible woman.) Then there's the whole Job story, for god's immorality Oh and there's also the loving god's idea of good parenting - be violent towards your children and then just murder them if they misbehave (regardless of the reason) (Proverbs 13:24 / Proverbs 23:12 / Deuteronomy 21:18 / Leviticus 20:9)

@cubester1232 Also, for the free will argument. If I create a robot with free will, yet I know it will kill 10,000 children per day and still chose to create it, according to you it’s just the robot’s fault. I’m blame free. How does that possibly make sense to you?

Reminds me of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, “I am not death, destroyer of worlds. It’s the bomb’s fault.”

@cubester1232 Also, for the free will argument. If I create a robot with free will, yet I know it will kill 10,000 children per day and still chose to create it, according to you it’s just the robot’s fault. I’m blame free. How does that possibly make sense to you? Reminds me of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, “I am not death, destroyer of worlds. It’s the bomb’s fault.”

I accept God's existence as axiomatic truth. The logic is that I accept it to be true - based on faith - as an axiom. The same as fundamental axioms in logic and math.

I accept God's existence as axiomatic truth. The logic is that I accept it to be true - based on faith - as an axiom. The same as fundamental axioms in logic and math.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #159:

He chose to create a universe where immeasurable suffering happens everyday. He’s a cruel POS
no he created a perfect world with free will @Sleepy_Gary said in #162:
@cubester1232 Also, for the free will argument. If I create a robot with free will, yet I know it will kill 10,000 children per day and still chose to create it, according to you it’s just the robot’s fault. I’m blame free. How does that possibly make sense to you?

Reminds me of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, “I am not death, destroyer of worlds. It’s the bomb’s fault.”
so you don't want to exist lol...

also gary it is not kind to call people pos ... I understand ur frustration but it is still not nice...

@Sleepy_Gary said in #159: > He chose to create a universe where immeasurable suffering happens everyday. He’s a cruel POS no he created a perfect world with free will @Sleepy_Gary said in #162: > @cubester1232 Also, for the free will argument. If I create a robot with free will, yet I know it will kill 10,000 children per day and still chose to create it, according to you it’s just the robot’s fault. I’m blame free. How does that possibly make sense to you? > > Reminds me of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, “I am not death, destroyer of worlds. It’s the bomb’s fault.” so you don't want to exist lol... also gary it is not kind to call people pos ... I understand ur frustration but it is still not nice...

@Scroto_Baggins

They are not incompatible. They are both attempts at explaining something that none of us can understand. It's just that some provide better explanations than others.

Again, I don't agree with this. Science is based on the scientific method and has a very high bar for objectivity. Faith is subjective, does not require evidence, and discusses objects (ex: God) that are inherently unscientific because they are subjective, immeasurable, not reproducible, etc.

You can AT BEST have a philosophical discussion about God, gods, the existence of spiritual matters, etc. but there is absolutely nothing scientific about religion. Hence, they share no commonality beyond being logical structures - so no, they are not compatible, no matter how you attempt to frame them as "explanations of things".

It is mental gymnastics. If you proclaim yourself to be a logical thinker, than how can you ignore/refute logic?

I'm a person. How can I be a person if I'm not all people? I like apples. How can I like apples if I don't like that particular apple?

The answer is multi-fold:

  • I accept God as axiomatic truth. Due to this, there's no need for further discussion / debate here.
  • It's a nuanced topic.
  • We disagree, which is possible. Believe it or not, you can't just have an opinion, then get mad at people for not having the same one. They're not ignoring logic - they simply disagree with you.

You are avoiding and jumping around every point that I have made.

Can you elaborate on this further?

Faith and science are not inherently different, because they both try to answer the same questions.

I disagree immensely. Science again uses the scientific method and is primarily about OBJECTIVE truth. SUBJECTIVE matters such as faith are inherently INCREDIBLY difficult to study. As far as I'm aware, science is math and physics, and then everything else goes downhill from there. Immense reliability and reproducibility problems.

Of course I can't disprove God's existence, but you also can't disprove that there's a giant spaghetti monster in the middle of the universe that made everything and IS God. To debate about disproval of something is worthless, to debate about acceptance of something's existence actually matters.

It's worthless when discussing science, sure. But not when discussing faith, because faith is about the subjective belief in something (or not).

I'm trying to win because you are trying to debate with Sleepy_Gary and you are just so obviously wrong I can't resist but stepping in to show you the flaws in your logic.

I don't think you're as high and mighty on the "logic" superiority as you think here.

I am trying to have a formal debate here.

Again, I am not.

You clearly don't believe in science well enough if you are "On the fence" about earth being 6,000 years old.

I believe in both faith and science. If you asked me what the scientific consensus was, I would tell you. I would use science when discussing matters of science, and faith when discussing matters of faith.

They are not incompatible, they in fact refute one another.

What do you mean?

You cannot disprove somethings existence. No matter how far science advances, it will not be able to disprove my Spaghetti Monster or your God. Yet it can certainly give us a preponderance of the evidence, and that has already been clearly proven.

This is kind of the point though and only reinforces the idea that faith and science are not compatible.

Enjoy Heaven.

If only.

> @Scroto_Baggins > They are not incompatible. They are both attempts at explaining something that none of us can understand. It's just that some provide better explanations than others. Again, I don't agree with this. Science is based on the scientific method and has a very high bar for objectivity. Faith is subjective, does not require evidence, and discusses objects (ex: God) that are inherently unscientific because they are subjective, immeasurable, not reproducible, etc. You can AT BEST have a philosophical discussion about God, gods, the existence of spiritual matters, etc. but there is absolutely nothing scientific about religion. Hence, they share no commonality beyond being logical structures - so no, they are not compatible, no matter how you attempt to frame them as "explanations of things". > It is mental gymnastics. If you proclaim yourself to be a logical thinker, than how can you ignore/refute logic? I'm a person. How can I be a person if I'm not all people? I like apples. How can I like apples if I don't like that particular apple? The answer is multi-fold: * I accept God as axiomatic truth. Due to this, there's no need for further discussion / debate here. * It's a nuanced topic. * We disagree, which is possible. Believe it or not, you can't just have an opinion, then get mad at people for not having the same one. They're not ignoring logic - they simply disagree with you. > You are avoiding and jumping around every point that I have made. Can you elaborate on this further? > Faith and science are not inherently different, because they both try to answer the same questions. I disagree immensely. Science again uses the scientific method and is primarily about OBJECTIVE truth. SUBJECTIVE matters such as faith are inherently INCREDIBLY difficult to study. As far as I'm aware, science is math and physics, and then everything else goes downhill from there. Immense reliability and reproducibility problems. > Of course I can't disprove God's existence, but you also can't disprove that there's a giant spaghetti monster in the middle of the universe that made everything and IS God. To debate about disproval of something is worthless, to debate about acceptance of something's existence actually matters. It's worthless when discussing science, sure. But not when discussing faith, because faith is about the subjective belief in something (or not). > I'm trying to win because you are trying to debate with Sleepy_Gary and you are just so obviously wrong I can't resist but stepping in to show you the flaws in your logic. I don't think you're as high and mighty on the "logic" superiority as you think here. > I am trying to have a formal debate here. Again, I am not. > You clearly don't believe in science well enough if you are "On the fence" about earth being 6,000 years old. I believe in both faith and science. If you asked me what the scientific consensus was, I would tell you. I would use science when discussing matters of science, and faith when discussing matters of faith. > They are not incompatible, they in fact refute one another. What do you mean? > You cannot disprove somethings existence. No matter how far science advances, it will not be able to disprove my Spaghetti Monster or your God. Yet it can certainly give us a preponderance of the evidence, and that has already been clearly proven. This is kind of the point though and only reinforces the idea that faith and science are not compatible. > Enjoy Heaven. If only.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #158:

Faith and science are separate when faith stays in its lane of dealing with things that can’t be proven. However, there are many cases where faith attempts to explain things that CAN be proven, and have been proven already.

Depends on your bar of "proof". You can't literally go back in time and witness the Big Bang, for example. Our models and predictions explain certain phenomena very well, but that doesn't change the fact that time only flows in one direction - for us, at least.

I’m glad you believe in evolution, but there’s a large population of people that are pushing biblical explanations of the universe in school. They think it’s okay to teach your children that the scientific method is false, and that the process of proving things correct - which is a cornerstone of every technology that is responsible for the modern world - is worthless when you have the Bible and a rapist preacher to indoctrinate you.

I'm not sure if I personally believe in evolution, but I believe that science supports the idea of evolution and that evolution meets the criteria of being scientific theory.

Listen to yourself. You’re attempting to move the goal posts, “ maybe god meant 14 billion years when he said 6000”. You’re shitting all over the very foundation that allowed your job in technology to be created in the first place.

What do you mean?

What’s the danger in this? Science solves the problems of humanity, and this process involves questioning our universe. Diverting human intellect into pointless avenues of study - I.e. anything faith based - directly undermines our drive to continue to explore.

You may find faith pointless, but I find it the most fulfilling and worthwhile aspect of my life.

I recommend you read the book Abusing Science by Phillip Kitcher if you want a thorough philosophical explanation of the dangers of religion. Or, you know, look at human history and the countless religious wars and suffering that’s resulted from your “immovable faith”

I don't read books. And I don't think religion is the cause of conflicts - I think a-hole humans are.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #158: > Faith and science are separate when faith stays in its lane of dealing with things that can’t be proven. However, there are many cases where faith attempts to explain things that CAN be proven, and have been proven already. Depends on your bar of "proof". You can't literally go back in time and witness the Big Bang, for example. Our models and predictions explain certain phenomena very well, but that doesn't change the fact that time only flows in one direction - for us, at least. > I’m glad you believe in evolution, but there’s a large population of people that are pushing biblical explanations of the universe in school. They think it’s okay to teach your children that the scientific method is false, and that the process of proving things correct - which is a cornerstone of every technology that is responsible for the modern world - is worthless when you have the Bible and a rapist preacher to indoctrinate you. I'm not sure if I personally believe in evolution, but I believe that science supports the idea of evolution and that evolution meets the criteria of being scientific theory. > Listen to yourself. You’re attempting to move the goal posts, “ maybe god meant 14 billion years when he said 6000”. You’re shitting all over the very foundation that allowed your job in technology to be created in the first place. What do you mean? > What’s the danger in this? Science solves the problems of humanity, and this process involves questioning our universe. Diverting human intellect into pointless avenues of study - I.e. anything faith based - directly undermines our drive to continue to explore. You may find faith pointless, but I find it the most fulfilling and worthwhile aspect of my life. > I recommend you read the book Abusing Science by Phillip Kitcher if you want a thorough philosophical explanation of the dangers of religion. Or, you know, look at human history and the countless religious wars and suffering that’s resulted from your “immovable faith” I don't read books. And I don't think religion is the cause of conflicts - I think a-hole humans are.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #160:

Do you believe that slavery is okay? If so, you’re a cruel POS just like the Christian god. If you don’t, then you’re not following the Bible, and you’re applying your own ethics to god’s word, and you’re a hypocrite. Which one is it?
No, once again gary we don't have to keep running in circles Adam and Eve chose to live in a world of sin and now mankind lives in that world... the chose to be separated from God as a result man kind created slavery... +plus what does believing that slavery is ok have to do with following the Bible????

@Sleepy_Gary said in #160: > Do you believe that slavery is okay? If so, you’re a cruel POS just like the Christian god. If you don’t, then you’re not following the Bible, and you’re applying your own ethics to god’s word, and you’re a hypocrite. Which one is it? No, once again gary we don't have to keep running in circles Adam and Eve chose to live in a world of sin and now mankind lives in that world... the chose to be separated from God as a result man kind created slavery... +plus what does believing that slavery is ok have to do with following the Bible????

@Sleepy_Gary Raping is a sin. Read the New Testament instead of searching on the internet for ways that supposedly make God cruel.

@Sleepy_Gary Raping is a sin. Read the New Testament instead of searching on the internet for ways that supposedly make God cruel.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #162:

@cubester1232 Also, for the free will argument. If I create a robot with free will, yet I know it will kill 10,000 children per day and still chose to create it, according to you it’s just the robot’s fault. I’m blame free. How does that possibly make sense to you?

Reminds me of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, “I am not death, destroyer of worlds. It’s the bomb’s fault.”

I'm curious, Sleepy_Gary...

I assume that you would say that you're 'alive'...would that be correct?

So, in your opinion, is the life that our bodies reflect coming from a separate star system different from that of the billions of others?

Or, would you say that the same life that I'm reflecting is probably the same life that you're reflecting?

@Sleepy_Gary said in #162: > @cubester1232 Also, for the free will argument. If I create a robot with free will, yet I know it will kill 10,000 children per day and still chose to create it, according to you it’s just the robot’s fault. I’m blame free. How does that possibly make sense to you? > > Reminds me of Oppenheimer’s famous quote, “I am not death, destroyer of worlds. It’s the bomb’s fault.” I'm curious, Sleepy_Gary... I assume that you would say that you're 'alive'...would that be correct? So, in your opinion, is the life that our bodies reflect coming from a separate star system different from that of the billions of others? Or, would you say that the same life that I'm reflecting is probably the same life that you're reflecting?

@ALucasM said in #168:

@Sleepy_Gary Raping is a sin. Read the New Testament instead of searching on the internet for ways that supposedly make God cruel.

Reading the New Testament is exactly why I think God is Bogus .
Same for the Old Testament.
The take away both have statements about killing those that are different.

@ALucasM said in #168: > @Sleepy_Gary Raping is a sin. Read the New Testament instead of searching on the internet for ways that supposedly make God cruel. Reading the New Testament is exactly why I think God is Bogus . Same for the Old Testament. The take away both have statements about killing those that are different.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.