End all Suffering now? you have the power.

[Tiberius]

So are you saying life is about so much more than suffering, there is so much joy also. ps the only right you have is that you have the power to do as you want the button is there. The only restriction being your judgement.

Of course it is. If life were only about suffering, most of us would probably commit suicide. There is suffering in the world, and all of us go through it at some point, some more than others. However, just because suffering exists does not mean we should give up. If anything, it means we should work together to try and eliminate as much of it as possible, so that everyone can experience the maximum joy.

Also, just because one has the power to do something does not mean they have the right to do it. I'm sure most governments have the power to mass exterminate their citizens, but it would never be right for them to do so.

[Brian37]

Nice.

Now, to show you how absurd this argument is. Everywhere you use the word "atheist" replace it with "Muslim" or "Jew" or "Christian" or "Communist" or "Mexican".

This is designed, to make us answer so you the theist go "SEE SEE SEE"

Now, the reality of this example is that people are a range. And even if all scientists were Christian, and they found a meteor they knew would hit the planet in a month or a week, the debate of informing the public vs not informing them would still happen.

This is just a mere attempt to create self importance to your personal predilections to falsely pretend that your position is important to evolution.

If you want to know why morality is evolutionary and biological, and not a mere thought exercise "The New Atheism" By Victor Stenger, explains why, no matter what our labels are, these types of issues are not a matter of labels, but individuals in a group and how the individual and group dynamic interact.

well as its been pointed out there is no single model of the atheist so I wanted your answer; so why not just answer.

Mark, instead of postulating the question using "atheist" in your example, you should have simply said "what would you do", you did not, which means you are trying to placate your sense of superiority rather than accept that we as species are not separate or special because of the things we might personally like.

Now. As far as a god not existing. I do think I am right to a very high degree. But I am not superior merely because I think I am right.

The truth in these examples is that labels don't determine what an individual will do, because we are still ultimately individuals.

[Mark 13:13]

well thats why I want it to be your choice and your rationale if you have one.

ok.

First off, I believe in the principles of a republic, so I would give up absolute power and establish a parlament as soon as I would receive such power.

Second, I do not have the right to determin the fait and life of others, and every individual on this planet has the right to selfdetermination. Therefor, I would not see it as moraly right.

Third, I dont see life as suffering, what gives my life purpose is not the idea of having my actions judged by a supreme being after death, but having my actions judged by those who come after my death.

Fourth, Why call it supernove?

well if it was as powerful as a star exploding (super nova oops) it would get the job done lol

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Let's say there was this guy who had the power to create a world with beings who could live without suffering. Or he could create a world with suffering. Which world should he make?

[Esquilax]

Well I suppose it might flesh out some opinions on if someone really had the power to end everything and stop suffering should they. There could be some that would think why not; it might be interesting as an experiment on how if Theists were taken out of the picture the rules of morality would be arrived at. Maybe its a bit too extreme but it might open the subject. If someone can think of a less dramatic one that could achieve the same result then we could switch to that instead.

I'll save you some time on your experiment: morality has nothing to do with theism, or religion in general. Religion co-opts existing morality, which is down to evolution and societal health, and claims authorship over it, when that is simply untrue.

[Mark 13:13]

Let's say there was this guy who had the power to create a world with beings who could live without suffering. Or he could create a world with suffering. Which world should he make?

lol straight in there. That would kill the discussion as then we would be into where the root of the suffering originated but assuming this guy created something else with a choice and that something else caused the suffering should the guy now end the experiment or can some good come out of it by letting it run.

[Brian37]

Well I suppose it might flesh out some opinions on if someone really had the power to end everything and stop suffering should they. There could be some that would think why not; it might be interesting as an experiment on how if Theists were taken out of the picture the rules of morality would be arrived at. Maybe its a bit too extreme but it might open the subject. If someone can think of a less dramatic one that could achieve the same result then we could switch to that instead.

I'll save you some time on your experiment: morality has nothing to do with theism, or religion in general. Religion co-opts existing morality, which is down to evolution and societal health, and claims authorship over it, when that is simply untrue.

Wow I really wish I had written that, soooooo true. You could say the same about nationalism and politics too.

The only downside is that we still need common law so in that rightful condemnation of squatting rights to authorship, you still don't want that to be hijacked by any anarchist or fascist.

[Mark 13:13]

well as its been pointed out there is no single model of the atheist so I wanted your answer; so why not just answer.

Mark, instead of postulating the question using "atheist" in your example, you should have simply said "what would you do", you did not, which means you are trying to placate your sense of superiority rather than accept that we as species are not separate or special because of the things we might personally like.

Now. As far as a god not existing. I do think I am right to a very high degree. But I am not superior merely because I think I am right.

The truth in these examples is that labels don't determine what an individual will do, because we are still ultimately individuals.

your away of base on this; but you are right there is a twin objective 1) to flush out opinions 2) to deal with what teaearlgrey has called me out on.

[Simon Moon]

Picture the scenario; you as an athiest have now become the leader of a nation with very advanced technology. You are the full authority, there is no one to answer to and all power to rule is yours. Your scientists have developed a new device so powerful they call it the supernova. It is designed to be the ultimate deterrent from aggression as in 1 push of a button, the one now blinking green on your desktop, the world will be obliterated in a flash so fast that everyone would be dead so fast that the wouldn't even experience pain. The earth would dissappear in one brilliant flash and then nothing.

You believe that death is final, no life after no God to meet. You look at the world around and see that people continue to suffer from all the normal pains, griefs, heartaches, relationship problems. Natural disasters continue to occur. Nations and groups still find reasons for war. The poor continue to be poor and the nutcases still erupt with deadly results. You could end the whole thing in a painless moment and all suffering would be gone in an instant. Everyone is going to die anyway this would be painless for all.

Would you press the button and end suffering?

if not why?

The real question is, why, as a Christian, would you not want to end the earth?

After all, Christian dogma states that this life is a quick (70 years or so) stopover on the way to eternal life with 'God', right?

As a Christian, ending the earth would solve many problems.

1. All Christians would immediately go to heaven. Why would you want to delay that?

2. Infants would instantly go to heaven. Why would you want to take the chance that they may be corrupted by 'evil' and end up in hell? Better to assure they go to heaven by ending their lives early, right?

3. The vast majority of those of us destined for eternal suffering, will not be 'saved' in our lifetimes. The few that might get 'saved' are offset by the infants that might become corrupted.

As a Christian. what are the downsides?

[Brian37]

Mark, instead of postulating the question using "atheist" in your example, you should have simply said "what would you do", you did not, which means you are trying to placate your sense of superiority rather than accept that we as species are not separate or special because of the things we might personally like.

Now. As far as a god not existing. I do think I am right to a very high degree. But I am not superior merely because I think I am right.

The truth in these examples is that labels don't determine what an individual will do, because we are still ultimately individuals.

your away of base on this; but you are right there is a twin objective 1) to flush out opinions 2) to deal with what teaearlgrey has called me out on.

How am I off base?

The point is that humans display the same range of actions, both good and bad. Once you use labels you are attempting to claim moral superiority.

It is one thing to say "I am right and this is why". But that is not what you did.

Again, to know why your OP is off base itself, take the word "atheist" and replace it with a religion you don't subscribe to, or a race you didn't grow up in, or a nation you did not grow up in, or a political party you don't subscribe to.