Just for fun, I would like to see what kind of god atheists would see fit to worship or accept.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 23, 2024, 12:28 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Atheists come up with ideal god
|
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?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
One who proves it's existence.
One that claims to be all knowing/all loving and actually lives up to its claims. One that would actually slap its followers when they're being arseholes and actually say "NO!"
Dying to live, living to die.
would there be a law?
Wouldn't need ten commandments.
Don't be a dick, don't hurt other people, don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.
Dying to live, living to die.
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:
(October 8, 2015 at 8:34 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 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. 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).
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (October 8, 2015 at 9:02 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote:(October 8, 2015 at 8:59 pm)Beccs Wrote: Wouldn't need ten commandments. 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?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. 
I worship nothing. I would accept a god that could prove his, her or it's existence and asked nothing of me (i.e. a god of unconditional love).
![[Image: 08.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nejibjmRWmw%2FT7qVumrPtgI%2FAAAAAAAAxVs%2FsIxIpH8_voc%2Fs1600%2F08.jpg)  RE: Atheists come up with ideal god
October 8, 2015 at 9:19 pm
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2015 at 9:31 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
"Ideal god"? What would we need that for? Why not come up with an "ideal" STD, an "ideal" global disaster, or an "ideal" totalitarian regime? The ideal versions of all those things would be the ones, that wouldn't exist anywhere, other than in fiction.
In other words - we already have an "ideal god", which is to say - we have no god at all. All we need is for thick people to realize and accept that...
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
