A list of all of God's crimes

[AthiestAtheist]

Not always and not if the said child is capable of taking care of itself.

Um, no. You can't do that, ever. There's emancipation, but that's the opposite, and only applies after a judge makes a decision.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I don't think that being made up is a crime, therefore god gets off the hook.

[Brian37]

. 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".

Isn't that the cluster fuck humanity fights over? I agree with IF IF IF IF IF we are going to play "let's pretend" claimed god exists. What crimes could he be convicted of? He'd make Hitler look like a boy selling lemonade in a cute suburb on the street corner.

I totally agree with the immorality of the god concept. I know that we are strictly talking about claims here.

What crimes could such a being be convicted of? Hitler's fate would look like probation.

[Anomalocaris]

The element of responsibility is missing in your argument here. A parent does not automatically have responsibility for his child, he can choose to forgo it via giving it up for adoption or simply paying child-support for the spouse. I mean, we don't go around prosecuting absentee parents for criminal negligence. It is only when they have assumed the responsibility and failed to meet it that they are considered guilty. God, for all intents and purposes, might as well be a deadbeat dad.

I disagree. I would say that the element of responsibility is very much applicable. True, a person can absolve themselves of responsibility for their child by giving them up for adoption or paying child support. However, "God" can do neither of these things. Also, people are not all powerful and omnipotent. And if you want to argue that "God" is the equivalent of a deadbeat dad.... well, deadbeat dads are prosecuted and sent to jail for failing to live up to their responsibility.

Concept of responsibility is born of system in which reciprocity is thought to lead to mutural benefit. A truly omnipotent totalitarian overlord need no reciprocity and can attain all his ends without increased trouble regardless of any efforts to thwart him by other participants in the system. So what rational reason is there to assert that he ought bind himself with anything born of reciprocity?

[Brian37]

Concept of responsibility is born of system in which reciprocity is thought to lead to mutural benefit. A truly omnipotent totalitarian overlord need no reciprocity

God belief really is Dakwins moth. It is a reflection of our own selfish desire to continue. The horrible aspect as to why this idea continues is because evolution isn't all harm or compassion, but what gets you to the point of reproduction.

The truth is that there never was a god, there are simply people in our species history who mistake their own selfish desires as being dogmatic fact that they should force on others.

[genkaus]

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.

God's existence was never the subject of discussion here and for the purpose of this discussion, it was taken for granted. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to start a topic called "God's crimes" without the assumption of his existence. No one claims that his attributes are proff of his existence (though contradictory attributes are often pointed out as disproof).

---

Um, no. You can't do that, ever. There's emancipation, but that's the opposite, and only applies after a judge makes a decision.

You mistake context. Child in this case does not only refer to those who are not legal adults, it refers to any of god's "children", which applies to adults and children alike.

---

Isn't that the cluster fuck humanity fights over? I agree with IF IF IF IF IF we are going to play "let's pretend" claimed god exists. What crimes could he be convicted of? He'd make Hitler look like a boy selling lemonade in a cute suburb on the street corner.

I totally agree with the immorality of the god concept. I know that we are strictly talking about claims here.

What crimes could such a being be convicted of? Hitler's fate would look like probation.

Now that you have made your opening statement to the jury, would you like to bring up the charges and present evidence?

---

Concept of responsibility is born of system in which reciprocity is thought to lead to mutural benefit. A truly omnipotent totalitarian overlord need no reciprocity and can attain all his ends without increased trouble regardless of any efforts to thwart him by other participants in the system. So what rational reason is there to assert that he ought bind himself with anything born of reciprocity?

I disagree here. In case of humans, he deemed it necessary to give us "free-will", thereby relinquishing any control or authority over our wills. Apparently that was necessary for his ends, but ended in the side-effect of his loss of authority. To regain that authority, he has to concede responsibility.

[Brian37]

I don't think that being made up is a crime, therefore god gets off the hook.

Once you buy the naked assertion of the broken omni claims people attribute to their pet god, that god, in their brain always gets off the hook. When anyone believes a naked assertion accountability and reason are it's first victims. Anything goes in the brain of a theist even when it makes no sense. It is not out of logic they come to their conclusions, but out of the desire to have a super hero.

The trump cards that maintain willful ignorance go like this.

"He doesn't have to explain himself to you"
"God is a mystery"
"God can do what he wants"
"You just don't understand"

All needlessly self inflicted mental roadblocks to avoid facing the inconsistencies of the "omni god" motif.

Once you have swallowed that you can justify all sorts of cruelty to others and even falsely sell it as a virtue.

---

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.

God's existence was never the subject of discussion here and for the purpose of this discussion, it was taken for granted. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to start a topic called "God's crimes" without the assumption of his existence. No one claims that his attributes are proff of his existence (though contradictory attributes are often pointed out as disproof).

---

Um, no. You can't do that, ever. There's emancipation, but that's the opposite, and only applies after a judge makes a decision.

You mistake context. Child in this case does not only refer to those who are not legal adults, it refers to any of god's "children", which applies to adults and children alike.

---

Isn't that the cluster fuck humanity fights over? I agree with IF IF IF IF IF we are going to play "let's pretend" claimed god exists. What crimes could he be convicted of? He'd make Hitler look like a boy selling lemonade in a cute suburb on the street corner.

I totally agree with the immorality of the god concept. I know that we are strictly talking about claims here.

What crimes could such a being be convicted of? Hitler's fate would look like probation.

Now that you have made your opening statement to the jury, would you like to bring up the charges and present evidence?

---

Concept of responsibility is born of system in which reciprocity is thought to lead to mutural benefit. A truly omnipotent totalitarian overlord need no reciprocity and can attain all his ends without increased trouble regardless of any efforts to thwart him by other participants in the system. So what rational reason is there to assert that he ought bind himself with anything born of reciprocity?

I disagree here. In case of humans, he deemed it necessary to give us "free-will", thereby relinquishing any control or authority over our wills. Apparently that was necessary for his ends, but ended in the side-effect of his loss of authority. To regain that authority, he has to concede responsibility.

Get your popcorn bucket ready, Houdini is going to escape your valid objection with fallacies tapped to their brain with mental gymnastics.

But it is always interesting to see the arguments people attempt, even if they are simply rehashed with new window dressing.

[Reforged]

Apparantly hes touched many of his flock and filled them with the blessing of the holy spirit so... sexual assault?