Bible reading

[c152]

The argument still stands never mind if it bores you. Based on the attributes you gave your god nobody ever had a choice but to "misinterpret" the bible. 
You said it yourself, he's omniscient and all powerful so if that was the case there is no autonomy. Hence immoral by our standards.

You don't get it. I can toss a block of wood into a fire, or do anything else I like with it, and no one says that's immoral. Why? Because it's not a being with thoughts. If god has predetermined my every thought, then there is no "me." I'm just a block of wood with no rights to moral treatment.

That's a matter of perspective and it still doesn't really change anything. You'd still have to prove that "you" as an autonomous being can exist created by such a god. To prove that you aren't that block of wood when you cannot step away from the beaten path, even if it leads to you being thrown into the fire.

[John V]

That's a matter of perspective

In your scenario, the only perspective is God's, as there are no other real beings with rights.

and it still doesn't really change anything.

It changes everything.

You'd still have to prove that "you" as an autonomous being can exist created by such a god.

Not at all. If "me" as an autonomous being can exist with god, then your interpretation of free will is flawed and your argument fails. If "me" as an autonomous being cannot exist with god, then God's actions are not immoral, as there's no "me" with rights. Either way your position fails.

[JackRussell]

Tell Pharaoh about free will.

[Harry Nevis]

God isn't claiming anything in that proverb.  Someone else is.

The difference being that we can see the teacher exists; the same cannot be stated for god.

Atheist 1: Proposes problem with the Bible
Christian: Addresses proposed problem with Bible
Atheist 2: Derp derp but god don't exist anyhows

Don't you guys ever get tired of this lame tag-team ploy?

Stop with the inane responses if you don't like it.

[c152]

That's a matter of perspective

In your scenario, the only perspective is God's, as there are no other real beings with rights.

and it still doesn't really change anything.

It changes everything.

You'd still have to prove that "you" as an autonomous being can exist created by such a god.

Not at all. If "me" as an autonomous being can exist with god, then your interpretation of free will is flawed and your argument fails. If "me" as an autonomous being cannot exist with god, then God's actions are not immoral, as there's no "me" with rights. Either way your position fails.

If "me" as an autonomous being can exist created by a god with the attributes you ascribe him then yes, my argument fails which is why I said it in the first place. The point is that you wouldn't know that because your god would always be one step ahead of you no matter what. 
And yes, his actions are still immoral by the standards we hold. Isn't it immoral to torture your creations? Just because you created something doesn't give you the right to hurt it according to our modern values. But I see what you're saying so disagree with me if you will, but the only thing you'd achieve in that case is to remove the "immoral" from the argument from your own perspective. I say making people hurt each other one's book is immoral, you say on the basis we've established that it's not.

[JackRussell]

I want my slaves then.

I want teh gayz and witches stoned.

I want my unruly child dragged out of town.

I want to have no wont for the morrow

I want somebody else to take responsibility for my shit.

I really, really want to be moral.

And I want to know why Dad doesn't want to talk to me.

I don't bite.

[drfuzzy]

I hear the Apostle's Creed every week.

So why are you whining about lack of a clear paragraph, and lack of agreement?

And why do you hear it every week? Are you like 14 or something?

I'm 58.  I make extra money playing the organ.  
The whole Bible lacks a clear paragraph.  It's all open to interpretation.  Even the parts that people might think are clear - if you read them literally, that is.  
The Catholics claim that the Apostle's Creed is not - but I know priests who laugh about parts of it.  I laugh at all of it, since there is no god.

[John V]

If "me" as an autonomous being can exist created by a god with the attributes you ascribe him then yes, my argument fails

Yep.

which is why I said it in the first place. The point is that you wouldn't know that because your god would always be one step ahead of you no matter what. 

No clue what that means.

And yes, his actions are still immoral by the standards we hold. Isn't it immoral to torture your creations? Just because you created something doesn't give you the right to hurt it according to our modern values.

Not sure which scenario you're referring to at this point so I'll respond to both:

If no free will, then no, it's no more immoral than throwing a piece of wood in the fire.

If free will, then god isn't forcing people to fight for any reason, and we're culpable for our own actions..

---

I'm 58.  I make extra money playing the organ.  
The whole Bible lacks a clear paragraph.  It's all open to interpretation.  Even the parts that people might think are clear - if you read them literally, that is. 

And? I'd say that's hyperbole, but considering Prov 25:2 it shouldn't be unexpected.
 

The Catholics claim that the Apostle's Creed is not

Not what?

- but I know priests who laugh about parts of it. 

So what?

[c152]

If "me" as an autonomous being can exist created by a god with the attributes you ascribe him then yes, my argument fails

Yep.

which is why I said it in the first place. The point is that you wouldn't know that because your god would always be one step ahead of you no matter what. 

No clue what that means.

And yes, his actions are still immoral by the standards we hold. Isn't it immoral to torture your creations? Just because you created something doesn't give you the right to hurt it according to our modern values.

Not sure which scenario you're referring to at this point so I'll respond to both:

If no free will, then no, it's no more immoral than throwing a piece of wood in the fire.

If free will, then god isn't forcing people to fight for any reason, and we're culpable for our own actions..

I made my argument falsifiable, not my fault you don't see what I'm getting at.
And yes, it's still immoral by our standards but apparently not by yours.

[drfuzzy]

---

If "me" as an autonomous being can exist created by a god with the attributes you ascribe him then yes, my argument fails

---

---

Yep.

---

---

which is why I said it in the first place. The point is that you wouldn't know that because your god would always be one step ahead of you no matter what. 

---

---

No clue what that means.

---

---

And yes, his actions are still immoral by the standards we hold. Isn't it immoral to torture your creations? Just because you created something doesn't give you the right to hurt it according to our modern values.

---

---

Not sure which scenario you're referring to at this point so I'll respond to both:

If no free will, then no, it's no more immoral than throwing a piece of wood in the fire.

If free will, then god isn't forcing people to fight for any reason, and we're culpable for our own actions..

---

---

I'm 58.  I make extra money playing the organ.  
The whole Bible lacks a clear paragraph.  It's all open to interpretation.  Even the parts that people might think are clear - if you read them literally, that is. 

And? I'd say that's hyperbole, but considering Prov 25:2 it shouldn't be unexpected.  
It is the glory of god to conceal a thing.     Yep.  Total bullshit.  But haven't we already agreed that god didn't write the Bible?
 

The Catholics claim that the Apostle's Creed is not

Not what?  Ah, some claim that it is perfect and infallible.  (lol)  You wanted a clear paragraph.  Well, ok.  If you're gonna call yourself a Cat'lick you have to agree with most of the crap in that particular paragraph.  

- but I know priests who laugh about parts of it. 

So what?  It's interesting to hear the witch doctors mocking the main tenets of the bullshit they are peddling, that's all.

So what?  What are we arguing about here?  That you think the Wholly Babble is something to follow for some reason and I think it's literary puke?  To each their own.
Because you seem to think a deity exists and I'm relatively sure that no such creature has ever existed?  So what?