A list of all of God's crimes

[Jackalope]

Are you sure you know what deism is? Based on what you wrote above, I'd say no.

Well, since you cant test it in a lab or get a patient on it, I'll relegate it to the woo section of what humanity makes up with no evidence.

There is no need to call nature god or treat it as if it has special qualities. Nature is a process, it is not a god so "Diesm" is nothing more than a step toward atheism and a step away from theism.

Look, the reason people slap that label on themselves is simple. It is nothing more than letting the "mystery of it all" and the "sense of awe" get to you. And also maybe a bit of fear of not having "something to believe in".

If you don't hold a belief in a god, skip the deism altogether. Just study nature and the universe without that label, you don't need it.

I don't disagree with you that it's woo, and I see no reason to believe it myself. I also see no harm in believing in a non-personal deity that doesn't carry all the dogmatic baggage with it. Deists are not the people creating the harms you mentioned, as far as I know.

If people are going to believe in woo (and they will), Deism is about as harmless as it gets.

[Brian37]

Well, since you cant test it in a lab or get a patient on it, I'll relegate it to the woo section of what humanity makes up with no evidence.

There is no need to call nature god or treat it as if it has special qualities. Nature is a process, it is not a god so "Diesm" is nothing more than a step toward atheism and a step away from theism.

Look, the reason people slap that label on themselves is simple. It is nothing more than letting the "mystery of it all" and the "sense of awe" get to you. And also maybe a bit of fear of not having "something to believe in".

If you don't hold a belief in a god, skip the deism altogether. Just study nature and the universe without that label, you don't need it.

I don't disagree with you that it's woo, and I see no reason to believe it myself. I also see no harm in believing in a non-personal deity that doesn't carry all the dogmatic baggage with it. Deists are not the people creating the harms you mentioned, as far as I know.

If people are going to believe in woo (and they will), Deism is about as harmless as it gets.

Even if you are not doing physical harm to yourself or to others, spreading claims of ANY kind that have no evidence, can lead others to actually expound on your naked assertion and that can get out of control. That is how myths and legends get started. L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and Scientology was started by his fans.

Right now Harry Potter and Star wars "seem" harmless, but as stupid as our species can be, it would not shock me in the least if 1,000 years from now a religion existed based on those fiction stories.

. And on top of that you do yourself a disservice by being distracted by the superfluous when you could just skip the guessing and go with what we know scientifically.

[Adjusted Sanity]

L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and Scientology was started by his fans.

I'm pretty sure Hubbard started Scientology.

[The Grand Nudger]

A few times actually, in a couple different states. It didn't work at first, try try again.

[Brian37]

L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer and Scientology was started by his fans.

I'm pretty sure Hubbard started Scientology.

Maybe, but it still took credulous people to buy it.

[Cyberman]

That's only because you can't have a religion consisting of just one person, crazy or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not really watered down woo, it's just straight woo, same as any other. Add a superpower subtract a superpower, it isn't the addition or subtraction that makes it woo, it's the superpowers (and superpower capable superbeing). Nevertheless, in the spirit of the thread it would be difficult to prosecute an uninvolved god for a crime. The desists gods is, however, a creator god. So there's wiggle room to paint it as a accomplice. Not a very strong case in american courts (think suing smith and wesson whenever somebody gets shot)

[genkaus]

Just because what I said was devastating, doesn't make it a rant. I just went through it every way it could be said; God has no basis for his authority, and if he has any, then he also has a responsibility.

And that applies to a deist god, since he neither asserts authority nor does he assumes responsibility.

OK that was just rambling. I have no idea what any of that is about.

Just pointing out a potential defense argument for god's authority sans any responsibility.

---

What does being an adult have to do with the god claim?

What god claim? We are talking about god's culpability.

EVEN as an adult, if you buy a defective product that injures you and you prove in a lawsuit court that the seller was neglectful you can win that lawsuit.

Firstly, the key word here is "selling", which god does not do and secondly, that would lead to a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.

But what makes the god claim even worse, is not only were you not asked before you were born if you wanted to go on this ride. The maker of this ride did a shitty job, not only with the natural disasters, but disease and famine and war.

Given that you could not have been asked before you were born and that you still have a choice to opt out of this ride at anytime, this won't even stand in a civil court.

As we know, nature and evolution are the explanation as to why bad things can happen. But make no sense when someone postulates a manufacturer who does a shitty job and then blames you for the factory it built and the defective products it didn't have to make.

Life is not perfect and never will be, it has both good and bad. But especially when you are talking about mere children, when anyone asserts a god when a child is dying of cancer, it makes me want to puke.

How is this relevant to bringing god up on criminal charges?

---

Nice dodge. It isn't a matter of anyone's personal right via government to make any claim they want. Jefferson too was a deist, I valued what he set up for society, but that does not make his, or anyone's pet deity real. The issue is the ability to prove the credibility of what one claims, not their personal rights. I value their right to make any claim they want, but equally valuable is the ability to question.

When you start suggesting "what harm does it do", what you are doing is knowingly or unwittingly supporting the idea of a taboo statues to protect their insecurities.

Religion has done great harm to our species, any form of dogmatism does that, even political dogmatism can be as dangerous to a society as a religion.

The Dark Ages, witch hunts, 9/11/2001, slavery sexism and homophobia are all done under the guise of religion which has access and influence on governments. No one should suggest religion can be pragmatically outlawed, but the only way to make the changes to improve humanity and get away from those destructive behaviors, is the ability to question. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. We would still have theocracies in the west, still have slavery, and even still today religion promotes homophobia which needs to be questioned.

Now you are just moving the goalposts and getting away from the discussion. The issue here is not "existence of god" or proving that claim, the issue is "if god exists, what crimes can he be charged with". The examples you gave were carried out in god's name, but not by him or by his command (atleast, unless proven otherwise). The idea of religion being criminal and god being criminal are two different issues.

[Deicide73]

kılıç_mehmet, you are making the assumption that is being exists. If this being did exist, I would agree with the statement that he is a dictator in every sense of the word. And that you are a slave to this dictator. You owe your life to him and you must agree and comply with all his commands no matter what. There are no appeals and any transgression is met with eternal torture. And as far as crimes go, I think the biggest one is genocide. Thousands of children die every year in third world countries of war, famine and disease. Most of the parent of these children believe in this god and pray for their children to be spared. And their pleas go unanswered. Which leads to a few conclusions. Either he can't save them, he won't or he doesn't exist.

[Brian37]

And that applies to a deist god, since he neither asserts authority nor does he assumes responsibility.

Doesn't matter. One is still talking about attributes, which are not proof of existence. It is still putting the cart before the horse.

Otherwise I could claim that my all powerful snarfwidget makes ice cream without a factory or workers and it too has no material or location.

What a person claims a god does or says is not evidence of it's existence. It is evidence that humans have vivid imaginations.