Atheists come up with ideal god

[sinnerdaniel94]

Well, I went to the trouble to answer this in the thread where you originally asked it, so I'll just copy my answer, here:

It's not really about what kind of god would be acceptable to me. Though I suppose if I had to think about the question a bit, I'd at least include "not genocidal, not giving 'divine revelations' that are in opposition to clearly-observable and -testable science, and does not feel the need to threaten humans into obedience". Maybe one that revealed Himself in a way that's a little less like UFOs picking up drunken rednecks out in the desert near Nevada, and, say maybe visited the population centers of Babylon, Athens, China, Rome, or Alexandria, instead of one of the most backward peoples on the planet, and then hoping we all extrapolate His existence from the sparse, secondhand accounts of questionable reliability based on testimony of a few guys who came from there telling a story of a dude in the desert.

What is not  acceptable to me is a god-concept that is so obviously manmade, full of all of the prejudices and superstitions and barbaric violence of a group of desert tribesmen, who apparently didn't know that by showing up in the Mideast he'd be ignoring the entirety of China and SE Asia, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, et cetera.

What is not  acceptable to me is a "free gift" that is on unnecessary pain of torture for disobedience, like a psychopathic pharaoh, when all that needs to happen (if we assume the proposition that an Omnipotent God somehow cannot stand the sight of sin and thus cannot let sinners into heaven) is that I die. Just die. End. Finis. I have failed to listen to the Messiah and find The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and am unable to come unto the Father. Great. Only those who do so get to go to heaven. Why the torture? It's unnecessary for God, but totally necessary for a priest who is trying to force as many people to accept his authority as possible, and is willing to use immoral means of psychological manipulation to do so.

When I cannot tell your God from a psychopath, it is unacceptable to me, because I am a moral person.

So I suppose the short answer is: "For starters, not a homicidal, genocidal, misogynistic, eternal-torturing psychopath."

As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.

My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).

Sorry I thought it would make for good discussion so I posted another thread.
Thanks for replying!

I think all humans are moral people because it says in the bible that the law is written on our hearts. That's why it doesn't take a genius to realize child molestation is wrong. however, I cant understand how you can argue for an objective moral truth like genocide is wrong if you deny a existential law. It seems you assume there is moral truths. Can you elaborate more on this?

---

and if somebody was being a dick?

Are human societies incapable of regulating the behavior of their own members through laws and "unwritten" rules/social mores?

Why would we need a god to deal with dicks?

hypothetically speaking, what would the god do if they broke the law of being a dick? are you suggesting that the humans would be responsible for making up a punishment and that's all?