Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

Ok! No is my simple answer.

Because God is: forgiving, merciful and loving. And that would be my answer back to Him. and if that damned my soul... sobeit!

I know we argue a lot, but I appreciate a concise, moral answer. Good show, sir. You're one of the few theists I know who has actually answered that question, and you gave possibly the best answer I could envision for it.

[Undeceived]

Thanks for addressing my post - ronny. Your reply now qualifies for this supplementary question: if you became convinced that your god told you to go out and be a part of some similar atrocity in its name, would you still trust in its plan?

Please try to answer without resorting to preaching or quoting extensive bible-spam at me.

Ok! No is my simple answer.

Because God is: forgiving, merciful and loving. And that would be my answer back to Him. and if that damned my soul... sobeit!

The question lurking here is "Is God good or evil?" God is loving to the point of rejection, so I follow Him. If He turned out not to be loving--an evil god--I would not follow him. But that's the difference between you atheists and me. You believe that if God exists, he would be evil. I know that He is good. If we keep using the word "atrocity", we talk at each other with two definitions, one with the "atrocity" done for judgmental reasons, and another with "atrocity" done for malicious reasons. We must be careful when replacing God's moral code with our own. We have a tendency to be bias. If the whole world was in anarchy and we had each killed at least one person, we would be less likely to prosecute a murderer. God is good or evil quite apart from His deeds. And our labeling a deed "atrocious" is bias from the start. So ronedee gave the correct answer: that if God did something atrocious, or "undeservingly cruel" as the definition goes, he would stop following God. But let's put the real question on the table: is said deed really cruel/atrocious, or is it deserved?

[Faith No More]

But if we must be careful of replacing god's moral code with our own, and we have a tendency to be bias, shouldn't you be doing what god says, regardless whether it conflicts with your own morals? After all, wouldn't you just be replacing god's moral code with your own, and who are you to say better than god?

[Chas]

The question lurking here is "Is God good or evil?" God is loving to the point of rejection, so I follow Him. If He turned out not to be loving--an evil god--I would not follow him. But that's the difference between you atheists and me. You believe that if God exists, he would be evil. I know that He is good.

You know nothing of the sort, you merely believe that.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Ok! No is my simple answer.

Because God is: forgiving, merciful and loving. And that would be my answer back to Him. and if that damned my soul... sobeit!

The question lurking here is "Is God good or evil?" God is loving to the point of rejection, so I follow Him. If He turned out not to be loving--an evil god--I would not follow him. But that's the difference between you atheists and me. You believe that if God exists, he would be evil. I know that He is good. If we keep using the word "atrocity", we talk at each other with two definitions, one with the "atrocity" done for judgmental reasons, and another with "atrocity" done for malicious reasons. We must be careful when replacing God's moral code with our own. We have a tendency to be bias. If the whole world was in anarchy and we had each killed at least one person, we would be less likely to prosecute a murderer. God is good or evil quite apart from His deeds. And our labeling a deed "atrocious" is bias from the start. So ronedee gave the correct answer: that if God did something atrocious, or "undeservingly cruel" as the definition goes, he would stop following God. But let's put the real question on the table: is said deed really cruel/atrocious, or is it deserved?

Atheists generally don't care if god is good or evil, we care if his followers are good or evil. You can go on and on about why killing millions in painful ways are actually good in god's eyes, that isn't a reflection of god's morals, that's a reflection of yours. To an atheist, every time you justify god's actions, you're endorsing the act, and god is not in the picture for us. I do have some allowances for theists though, because I know having god in the picture warps your worldview.

Sorry if I misspoke for some atheists here.

[Bad Writer]

Nope, I'm good with what you said. God's word is probably not real, which means it's made up by people. That moral code of "god's" therefore belongs to man. I have every right to challenge that so-called morality with what I hold to be moral and right because, unless I'm mistaken, I think we're all human beings here.

[Undeceived]

Atheists generally don't care if god is good or evil, we care if his followers are good or evil.

How do you personally decide what is good and what is evil? Fill in the blanks:
An act is right if and only if __.
An act is wrong if and only if __.

[Minimalist]

How do you personally decide what is good and what is evil?

I think about for myself.

Try it some time.

Beats reading some old fucking book of bullshit.

[Silver]

How do you personally decide what is good and what is evil?

Common Sense.

Fill in the blanks:
An act is right if and only if __.
An act is wrong if and only if __.

Oh, I love madlib.

An act is right if and only if vagina.
An act is wrong if and only if butthurt.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Atheists generally don't care if god is good or evil, we care if his followers are good or evil.

How do you personally decide what is good and what is evil? Fill in the blanks:
An act is right if and only if __.
An act is wrong if and only if __.

I dunno, case by case basis, I don't have a personal moral code or anything. But so far it's working pretty well.

How would you fill in the blanks?