Atheists come up with ideal god

[Pyrrho]

Bold emphasis is added:

No being that wants to be worshiped, let alone demands to be worshiped, should be worshiped.  A loving, caring, helpful god would be worthy of thanks.  So would a creator.  But worship?  Why would a powerful being want human worship?

No.  A creator is not automatically worthy of thanks.  Any being that would create a world as messed up as this one deserves hatred and contempt.  It could not possibly be worthy of thanks.

[Jenny A]

Bold emphasis is added:

No being that wants to be worshiped, let alone demands to be worshiped, should be worshiped.  A loving, caring, helpful god would be worthy of thanks.  So would a creator.  But worship?  Why would a powerful being want human worship?

No.  A creator is not automatically worthy of thanks.  Any being that would create a world as messed up as this one deserves hatred and contempt.  It could not possibly be worthy of thanks.

Oh I disagree.  I'd rather have been born than not.  Therefore thanks is in order.  Continuous worshipful thanks no.  But thanks.

[Pyrrho]

So, was it worth it for all of the children starving in Africa, and for all of the people who died in WWII and every other war?  And all of the suffering from diseases and etc.  Is this world something that you seriously believe anyone should be thankful for?

[sinnerdaniel94]

Humans are capable of making laws up without God's help, but what I'm asking is if you think genocide, for example, is absolutely wrong. Or is it just a result of sociocultural relativism?

Ugh, saw this right before I went to turn the computer monitor off... so I'll answer.

Of course it's a result of sociocultural moral advancement, all of which are relative. That's what I meant by "two steps forward, one step back". Some societies get it wrong, and it's incumbent on those societies who have come to recognize the concept of basic human rights to step up and convince the others to come into the modern era. 

Unfortunately, ISIS is still living by the barbaric code that informed the Biblical authors' worldview. They certainly thought that Genocide was not just okay, but commanded by God Himself!

We know better now. Our relativist morality has expanded to include the basic rights of individual humans, at least in principle (our jurisdiction cannot cover everwhere, but that's why I am a Secular Humanist, a group whose beliefs include the idea of a single world government in which there would be universal rights and global jurisdiction to protect those rights against the remnant barbarities of selfish and violent groups, usually guided by Bronze Age desert religions in their reasons for acting thusly), and there's really no putting that genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

Every rule you think is "fixed and absolute" (and thus objective) has in fact changed with time. What constitutes rape has changed drastically, just since the 1970s in the USA alone. Murder may seem objectively wrong, but if you read any basic book on anthropology, you'll see that the exact definition of "justified" murder varies wildly across the globe. You might think stealing is objectively wrong, but the concepts for exactly what constitutes property and theft are a product of our particular sort of civilization, and again can vary widely... even we would not punish a child who steals because he is starving, for instance. We would consider it morally justified because of a failure to properly take care of that child, as we think adults should do... another idea which varies widely from culture to culture.

We get this question here almost literally every day, because there are preachers out there teaching that they have absolute morality and that we atheists can have no basis for it as relativists. But nobody really thinks it through, to realize that we are all  relativists, and that our relative definition evolves in each culture over time, with concepts bleeding-over from culture to culture and rights movements changing the entire landscape of what was once considered acceptable and moral.

The accusation that atheists have no basis for morality flies in the face of the fact that even animal societies can be demonstrated to behave in a self-sacrificial and "moral" way under experimental conditions, and that it is observed in all human societies, whether secular or religious, even though it varies and changes. Humans make rules. We make societies. We make morals. It is the fundamental definition of what we are: the moral, intelligent, social animal.

seems like there is an ideal law that we are striving towards, or am I mistaken?

---

So, was it worth it for all of the children starving in Africa, and for all of the people who died in WWII and every other war?  And all of the suffering from diseases and etc.  Is this world something that you seriously believe anyone should be thankful for?

Christians believe that we are the cause of suffering and death in the world due to our sin. For the wages of sin is death.

---

Ugh, saw this right before I went to turn the computer monitor off... so I'll answer.

Of course it's a result of sociocultural moral advancement, all of which are relative. That's what I meant by "two steps forward, one step back". Some societies get it wrong, and it's incumbent on those societies who have come to recognize the concept of basic human rights to step up and convince the others to come into the modern era. 

Unfortunately, ISIS is still living by the barbaric code that informed the Biblical authors' worldview. They certainly thought that Genocide was not just okay, but commanded by God Himself!

We know better now. Our relativist morality has expanded to include the basic rights of individual humans, at least in principle (our jurisdiction cannot cover everwhere, but that's why I am a Secular Humanist, a group whose beliefs include the idea of a single world government in which there would be universal rights and global jurisdiction to protect those rights against the remnant barbarities of selfish and violent groups, usually guided by Bronze Age desert religions in their reasons for acting thusly), and there's really no putting that genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

Every rule you think is "fixed and absolute" (and thus objective) has in fact changed with time. What constitutes rape has changed drastically, just since the 1970s in the USA alone. Murder may seem objectively wrong, but if you read any basic book on anthropology, you'll see that the exact definition of "justified" murder varies wildly across the globe. You might think stealing is objectively wrong, but the concepts for exactly what constitutes property and theft are a product of our particular sort of civilization, and again can vary widely... even we would not punish a child who steals because he is starving, for instance. We would consider it morally justified because of a failure to properly take care of that child, as we think adults should do... another idea which varies widely from culture to culture.

We get this question here almost literally every day, because there are preachers out there teaching that they have absolute morality and that we atheists can have no basis for it as relativists. But nobody really thinks it through, to realize that we are all  relativists, and that our relative definition evolves in each culture over time, with concepts bleeding-over from culture to culture and rights movements changing the entire landscape of what was once considered acceptable and moral.

The accusation that atheists have no basis for morality flies in the face of the fact that even animal societies can be demonstrated to behave in a self-sacrificial and "moral" way under experimental conditions, and that it is observed in all human societies, whether secular or religious, even though it varies and changes. Humans make rules. We make societies. We make morals. It is the fundamental definition of what we are: the moral, intelligent, social animal.

seems like there is an ideal law that we are striving towards, or am I mistaken?

---

So, was it worth it for all of the children starving in Africa, and for all of the people who died in WWII and every other war?  And all of the suffering from diseases and etc.  Is this world something that you seriously believe anyone should be thankful for?

Christians believe that we are the cause of suffering and death in the world due to our sin. For the wages of sin is death.

I'm thankful that God has saved us from what we did and could never fix. Christians look forward to the day that God creates a new heaven and earth where sin is permanently removed, and there is no more death or suffering.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

seems like there is an ideal law that we are striving towards, or am I mistaken?

I don't know what that means. I really don't. When you start speaking in terms of "perfect" or "ideal", you have ventured outside the real world. I think most anyone would agree that the "ideal" is to maximize happiness and freedom with only the necessary limits to ensure the continuation of a healthy society and prevent infringement of one person's liberty upon another's... but the details of how exactly that would work are far from obvious.

I do know that revealed religions are unlikely to provide a solution, based on the nature of how they operate. Everyone would agree that someone else's religion's theocratic rule would be bad... why they can't see that the same is true for their own, with respect to everyone but their particular sect's members, honestly baffles me.

We cannot know what the "right" answer is; maybe there isn't one. But we can imagine, and try to do better for everyone.

A trifle simplistic, but I've always liked John Lennon's take:

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm thankful that God has saved us from what we did and could never fix. Christians look forward to the day that God creates a new heaven and earth where sin is permanently removed, and there is no more death or suffering.

Sure - just sit on your fat a**e and "look forward". Why do anything, if Jebus is going to come any minute now and sort out all the problems?

[sinnerdaniel94]

seems like there is an ideal law that we are striving towards, or am I mistaken?

I don't know what that means. I really don't. When you start speaking in terms of "perfect" or "ideal", you have ventured outside the real world. I think most anyone would agree that the "ideal" is to maximize happiness and freedom with only the necessary limits to ensure the continuation of a healthy society and prevent infringement of one person's liberty upon another's... but the details of how exactly that would work are far from obvious.

I do know that revealed religions are unlikely to provide a solution, based on the nature of how they operate. Everyone would agree that someone else's religion's theocratic rule would be bad... why they can't see that the same is true for their own, with respect to everyone but their particular sect's members, honestly baffles me.

We cannot know what the "right" answer is; maybe there isn't one. But we can imagine, and try to do better for everyone.

A trifle simplistic, but I've always liked John Lennon's take:

if its impossible to know the right answer, then why try? why is it a duty to make sure everyone is happy and safe? why do you strive to be free and happy? where did that concept come from? and if its just a result of human invention and imagination, then there is no reason to tell anyone to do anything, rather it's just a suggestion; no one can say you're truly wrong in anything. It's just your opinion. Someone can suggest to a murderer to not kill, but I don't see why he should take you seriously.

[Ravenshire]

what I'm asking is if you think genocide, for example, is absolutely wrong. Or is it just a result of sociocultural relativism?

According you your buy-bull, there's nothing at all wrong with genocide.

[Jenny A]

what I'm asking is if you think genocide, for example, is absolutely wrong. Or is it just a result of sociocultural relativism?

According you your buy-bull, there's nothing at all wrong with genocide.

It's what god ordered for various Canaanite towns.

[sinnerdaniel94]

what I'm asking is if you think genocide, for example, is absolutely wrong. Or is it just a result of sociocultural relativism?

According you your buy-bull, there's nothing at all wrong with genocide.

there are multiple verses saying not to kill. you're questioning why God commanded the Israelites to slay the Canaanites, and the answer is that God said the sins of the Canaanites reached such a level that they deserved to die. Just like how we execute murders in our society, God exercised His justice.