- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfI want to see if Divegeester will answer me without the benefit of hiding amidst an atheist's "helping hand".
Maybe it is your interpretation/ideology of "perfect justice" that is the morally incoherent abomination. If you are as smart as you pretend you are, you will know this is not something you can disguise by asking trite, loaded questions like "Is God capable of imperfect justice?"
The question is to him.
Divegeester,
You always want to argue with me but you don't want to answer questions I put to you.
Is God capable of imperfect justice?
Or in other words, if God were to dispense imperfect justice would it be Him going against His nature?
Yes or No?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfAre you implying that two contradictory interpretations of what 'perfect justice' is, are not logically possible and that only one interpretation can be correct? (Which would only make sense with an absolute moral standard) How is that compatible with your 'relative morality'?
Maybe it is your interpretation/ideology of "perfect justice" that is the morally incoherent abomination. If you are as smart as you pretend you are, you will know this is not something you can disguise by asking trite, loaded questions like "Is God capable of imperfect justice?"
What in your mind would constitute 'perfect justice' within an atheistic worldview?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmfGet out of the way and let the big boy handle it by himself.
You have dodged my point about how your loaded question is merely a clumsy attempt to sanctify your personal liking for your torturer god ideology.
Maybe you dodge questions concealing your love for your sinning life more than anything or anyone else.
If you want a question, here's one for you.
If you turn out to be wrong and there is God,
wouldn't it be His mercy to reveal less of Himself to you, if He knows:
1.) You're never going to want Him.
2.) The more you know about Him the more guilty you'd be for your sins.
If God knew you were never going to repent, wouldn't revealing less of Himself to you be a mercy, reducing your culpability?
Originally posted by @sonshipWhat "sins"? I am an atheist. I am not guilty of transgressing the wishes of the god figures that appeal to the diverse imaginations of people around me. If your morality is shaped by superstitious notions of supernatural causality and "law", then good for you. Save your talk of "sins" for when you talk to people who think "sins" exist.
The more you know about Him the more guilty you'd be for your sins.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 18
Originally posted by @fmf
What "sins"? I am an atheist. I am not guilty of transgressing the wishes of the god figures that appeal to the diverse imaginations of people around me. If your morality is shaped by superstitious notions of supernatural causality and "law", then good for you. Save your talk of "sins" for when you talk to people who think "sins" exist.
What "sins"? I am an atheist. ....
Dodge.
The question started out "IF ... you turned out to be wrong."
If you turn out to be wrong and there is God,
Dodge.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmf
What "sins"? I am an atheist. I am not guilty of transgressing the wishes of the god figures that appeal to the diverse imaginations of people around me. If your morality is shaped by superstitious notions of supernatural causality and "law", then good for you. Save your talk of "sins" for when you talk to people who think "sins" exist.
. I am not guilty of transgressing the wishes of the god figures ....
You dodged,
My question started with a hypothetical allowing for you being incorrect.
If you turn out to be wrong and there is God,
wouldn't it be His mercy to reveal less of Himself to you, if He knows:
So you are now making a positive truth claim that you KNOW that there is no God?
Then you have to backpeddle on your philosophy that all burden of proof is on the truth claim making theist and you are just a super passive "no belief" position - "atheist."
28 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIf you want to talk about morality fine. But I don't see how stuff you imagine or that happens to appeal to your imagination creates any moral dilemma for me. As long as you frame right and wrong in terms of being "sins" rather than the walk the walk reality of living life in a morally sound way, you are operating on a landscape of superstition and preoccupation with magical beings and phenomena. There is no coherent justification for torturing human beings ~ forever, no less ~ for lacking belief in something, except if you make some grotesque appeal to the content of your imagination. This explains your weak self-sanctifying rhetorical gimmick earlier and your ruffled indignation in reply to a very simple point.What "sins"? I am an atheist. ....
Dodge.
The question started out "IF ... you turned out to be wrong."
If you turn out to be wrong and there is God,
Dodge.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmfWhich makes you more guilty if God exists?
"Culpability" for what?
Am I also "culpable" for not being a Hindu?
1.) You sinned and didn't know better from God.
2.) You sinned and DID know better from God.
Which makes you more responsible for what you have done?
The original question to you started out with "IF ... you turn out to be wrong ..."