Author Topic: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"  (Read 6697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2387
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2015, 01:14:05 PM »
You guys should get a room or something. You're going to scare all the homophobes away with your naughty pillow talk.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2015, 02:00:22 PM »
Rules from a god who knows far more than human beings should be helpful information. They should not be arbitrary "tests" to see who will obey. God already knows who will obey and who will not, right?[1]
 1. He knew that Job would be faithful not matter what he did, and tortured the poor guy and his family relentlessly anyway. Presumably for fun. Or as an example to later generations. Or some other dumb reason.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2015, 02:12:42 PM »
Both pork and shellfish are unsafe to eat unless properly prepared.  The Jews most likely found out that they were dangerous and forbade the meat entirely, while other cultures experimented and came up with safer ways to eat them.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2015, 04:32:40 PM »
Most things are unsafe if not done properly. That is where the bible really fails as a useful book of rules. Instead of a scattershot of hundreds of rules, most of which only applied in limited ways to certain people and at a certain place and time, how about some generally useful practical principles? Concepts that would help people in every era and no matter what religion they believed in.

Like basic science-- a chapter on germ theory, for example. Explain about germs and let people take it from there. Then you would not need a whole bunch of separate specific (but useful) rules about how to wash hands, when and where. Or how long to boil water and in what kind of pot. Or that pork should be cooked according to this particular recipe. And so forth. That kind of basic information would be truly timeless--they still use germ theory today, and it works everywhere. Even on the space station! :D

Considering how much expensive papyrus and parchment bandwidth was wasted on this vital and timeless information: a king's love poem to his squeeze, how to prepare an an altar or an animal for sacrifice, parables with ambiguous morals, what ethnic groups to enslave, what happens to people god doesn't like, fake "historical events" that never happened, magic spells that won't work, and of course the endless begats, you can't say there wasn't room for basic science.[1]

As skeptic has suggested, it is curious that god would make a world full of dangerous disease germs, but offered no instructions on how to deal with disease germs. One short chapter that would have saved millions of people pain, suffering, disease and death. But not a word. And still this god qualifies for the wise and loving father award?
 1. Anybody here had to select a slave lately? Had to prepare an altar? Stone any gays to death? Me neither. :angel:
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2015, 05:42:29 PM »
Both pork and shellfish are unsafe to eat unless properly prepared.

I quibble that some shellfish need not be prepared.  Raw, live oysters, clams ans mussels need only be handled properly. 

As for proper preparation, so does chicken, beef, goat, lamb, squid, fish, bear, horse, dog, cat, rattle snake, squirrel, opossum, fruit bat, orangutan, walrus, koala and pretty much everything else we might be inclined to put in our mouths.  People died a few years ago from bacteria on melons. 

Pork and crabs are no more dangerous than any other food.  That they are perciced to be is just a cultural bias.  Kosher laws were not revolutionary breakthrough rules for food safety.  People knew how to safely handle all the taboo foods as is evident by the fact that their neighbors were doing it for centuries.  If kosher laws were such life savers, you would expect other cultures to have something like them.  Like the Chinese, who have eaten pork since forever, and do not have such taboos. 

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2015, 06:07:03 PM »
you guys are surprised vis skep's "question/answer style"?

you should be smoted for your surpise & indignation.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #64 on: May 07, 2015, 06:09:01 PM »
I quibble that some shellfish need not be prepared.  Raw, live oysters, clams ans mussels need only be handled properly.
Handling a food properly (so it doesn't spoil or go bad) is part of preparing it to be eaten.  I read an article on how to cook mussels, for example, and it was very specific about the need to discard ones with cracked shells or ones that had died, among other things.  But it's certainly true that you don't need to do anything to the mussels themselves besides dump them in the pot.  I assume the same is basically true of clams and oysters.

Quote from: screwtape
As for proper preparation, so does chicken, beef, goat, lamb, squid, fish, bear, horse, dog, cat, rattle snake, squirrel, opossum, fruit bat, orangutan, walrus, koala and pretty much everything else we might be inclined to put in our mouths.  People died a few years ago from bacteria on melons.

Pork and crabs are no more dangerous than any other food.  That they are perciced to be is just a cultural bias.  Kosher laws were not revolutionary breakthrough rules for food safety.  People knew how to safely handle all the taboo foods as is evident by the fact that their neighbors were doing it for centuries.  If kosher laws were such life savers, you would expect other cultures to have something like them.  Like the Chinese, who have eaten pork since forever, and do not have such taboos.
I think you're missing the point, as I wasn't arguing that kosher laws were about food safety to begin with.  I said that pork and shellfish were unsafe to eat unless properly prepared, but that doesn't justify an outright ban on those foods.  There are a lot of foods which are unsafe to eat unless properly prepared.  The point is that you have to be more careful with pork and shellfish than you do with other foods.  For example, you have to cook pork all the way through, which you don't have to do with beef.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2015, 07:28:12 PM »
This discussion on food safety is the exact sort of thing that god could have easily explained, or even fixed by not having food be full of harmful germs in the first place! A list of hundreds of rules scattered around a book thousands of pages long is almost as worthless as no rules at all. Remember, most people were not literate until a few hundred years ago. Funny how people all over the world had other hundreds of rules from their gods, rules that were equally pointless and lacking basic science.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Hamsaka

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Darwins +86/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2015, 06:10:25 AM »
I was just going to point out the same thing. Skeptic, you constantly do this. Whenever someone gives a well-thought-out answer to a question, you find some way to either twist what was said, go off on a tangent, or only respond to some minute bit of a post while ignoring the actual points made.
After reading through some of his recent posts and threads I dare say the reason for this is that skep isn't looking for answers to his question. He is looking for one specific answer.

He has a specific answer in mind to his questions and if allowed he will argue, lawyer and change conditions until his answer to his own question would be the only possible one to give.

OK, you've inspired me.  I'm gonna answer Skep's question with the one specific answer he is looking for.

I would believe in God (Skep's god, no less) if I had the slightest, most ephemeral inkling that this God could make it so I would never die, so I could hug my departed loved ones again, watch my dead niece grow up, and then all of us would live erm, exist forever in a special place where there was no pain, no suffering, and an eternal abundance of happiness and love.  If I had the remotest thought that this god would indeed punish the child rapists, ISIS, hedge fund rip-offs, shithead exhusbands (both of them) and the check out lady who offered me the 55-and-over discount A FEW YEARS TOO EARLY.  Oh, and my body at age 23.

Except I don't.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #67 on: May 08, 2015, 08:21:45 AM »
I assume the same is basically true of clams and oysters.

Usually, I just pry open the shell and eat the little buggers alive.  So far, so good.  I've not died or gotten sick from them.  I did get food poisoning from eating a fish taco in Anaheim once though.  I was out of commission for two days.  Blah. That was 7 years ago and I haven't been able to eat fish tacos since.  I also once puked really hard from eating watermelon that had been sitting out in the sun too long.

And there is nothing about other shellfish - lobster, crabs, shrimp - that is especially dangerous.  Cooked, they are fine.  I am not aware of any disease they carry that is any more terrifying than ecoli or salmonella.

The point is that you have to be more careful with pork and shellfish than you do with other foods.  For example, you have to cook pork all the way through, which you don't have to do with beef.

I don't think it is a matter of having to be any more careful.  Chicken also has to be cooked all the way through.  With shellfish, you don't eat the ones that are already dead.  But then, you also do not eat the dead fish floating on top of the water either.  You don't eat roadkill. 

And let's also remember that the kosher laws don't say "pigs".  They say, "animals with cloven hoof that do not chew their cud."  This includes camels and rabbits.  So while we make a thing about pork, that is because it is eaten far more frequently here in the west than rabbit or camel.  I've never had camel.  I've only had rabbit once.  Do they require special handling? 

These articles point out that kosher chicken actually has more bacteria than any other chicken measured
http://blog.euromonitor.com/2013/11/kosher-under-criticism-for-food-safety-issues.html
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/10/kosher-chicken-found-to-have-highest-rate-of-antibiotic-resistant-e-coli/
that might be a function of modern agri-business, though.

In this one, a former ultraorthodox jew discusses it (along with reading Hitchens)
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/forbidden-food

this one vassilates between saying it is more healthy and not.
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
It says it comes down to this: "The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so."

This article:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/making-sense-of-kosher-laws/

...makes some good points.  It points out, as I have, that the hebrews' neighbors ate pork.  And the hebrews, being shepards, did not really have pigs.  And the hebrews, being extremely xenophobic douchebags, may have created the taboo as an identity thing.  "They eat pork, so we do not!"  It is common for people to define themselves in terms of being the negative of their enemies or rivals.

It also suggests the superstitious side of it.  With their belief of the "life" being in the "blood", it may have created the taboo against mixing meat and milk.

So, it's not just about pork, but even if it were, pork isn't all that dangerous anyway.  The whole idea of kosher being for safety is a modern myth that has no scholarship behind it, as far as I can tell.




What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #68 on: May 08, 2015, 08:42:37 AM »
So, it's not just about pork, but even if it were, pork isn't all that dangerous anyway.  The whole idea of kosher being for safety is a modern myth that has no scholarship behind it, as far as I can tell.
And as I said before you wrote that somewhat lengthy post, I don't consider kosher to be about food safety either.

I think you're missing the point, as I wasn't arguing that kosher laws were about food safety to begin with.
Should I really have had to repeat this?  And please, don't waste my time with trying to argue that I talked about how you have to be more careful with pork and shellfish, as I acknowledged in the very same post that other foods are also unsafe to eat unless properly prepared.  The amount of preparation for pork and shellfish is fairly small; they certainly could have learned preparation methods from other cultures if they had really wanted to.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5056
  • Darwins +1082/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #69 on: May 08, 2015, 08:44:49 AM »
even fixed by not having food

That'd have solved the dilemma completely, right?  Just construct reality such that we don't need a metabolic process to function.  No need for food translates to no need for food safety guidelines.  No room for argument whatsoever.  No possibility of misunderstanding the rules.  No possibility of being honestly mistaken about the rules.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +858/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #70 on: May 08, 2015, 10:37:26 AM »
You guys are always complaining about how God's rules are stupid and pointless and that even if He was real, you wouldn't follow Him.

So my questions to you guys are:

What rules would you accept from God?
Would you respect any rules given to us by God?
Do you think the concept of God having rules for us is stupid?
Do you think there should be any rules at all from God?

Notice how the approach here is fundamentally authoritarian.  Compare:

What rules would you accept?
Would you respect any rules?
Do you think the concept of having rules is stupid?
Do you think there should be any rules at all?

Phrased this way, I doubt that very many theists would try to argue that atheists are opposed to all rules.  They would probably even agree with most of the rules we would apply, except maybe the principle of separation of church and state, if it was their church (rather than somebody else's church/mosque/temple) that got to be the official church.  We stop at stop signs, we don't drive 80mph through school zones, we don't make lampshades from human skin, etc., etc.--and likewise, for civilized theists.

What's the difference then, between a rule, and a rule "from God?"  If a rule is sensible, most people are willing to obey it, because it is sensible.  If a rule is not sensible, if it is evil, or just plain ridiculous, then people may object to it, protest it, ignore it, openly and flagrantly disobey it, or even rebel against the issuing agency.  Theists generally don't have a problem with that, either. 

However, when a rule is "from God," it is supposed to be an exception to, well, the rule, of how we respond to rules.  We are supposed to Just Obey, without question, without even thinking about whether the rule is morally good or makes any sense whatsoever.  Not because the rule is good, helpful, sensible, or just, but because of who (supposedly) issued it.  The rule should be obeyed because of the putative deity's status and authority, rather than anything having to do with the content or effects of the rule itself.  When it comes to Yahweh, we're supposed to adopt the Nuremberg Defense as a way of life.

This ought to seem at least a little bizarre.  After all, what use could an eternal, omnipotent creator of a hundred billion galaxies possibly have for high status among humans?  Can even a believer imagine Yahweh wanting to replace Kim Jong Un as dictator of North Korea?  Run for President of the United States?  Become the CEO of Google?  Even taking over as King of Earth is not that much of a step up from any of those, maybe an order of magnitude or two of increased status.  Yet somehow, theists have no difficulty accepting that being King of the Humans really is their omnimax god's one great ambition in life.

Now here's the rub: Yahweh is supposedly obsessed with gaining human obedience (what for?!), to the point that he will torture billions of humans for eternity when it isn't forthcoming...yet he never shows up to collect.  Instead, the Jealous God, whose Name is Jealous...lets ordinary human beings step up and make the rules (i.e., write the Bible and later decide which parts of it count, write the Church Creeds, the Republican Party platform, etc.), collect the money, the status, the sexual access to children and congregation members, the title to the fancy buildings, the seats in the House of Lords, and so on, in his name.  Hmm.  Isn't that odd?  What could possibly explain such a phenomenon?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2267
  • Darwins +212/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #71 on: May 08, 2015, 10:44:34 AM »
even fixed by not having food

That'd have solved the dilemma completely, right?  Just construct reality such that we don't need a metabolic process to function.  No need for food translates to no need for food safety guidelines.  No room for argument whatsoever.  No possibility of misunderstanding the rules.  No possibility of being honestly mistaken about the rules.

That's actually a really good point, and raises the question of WHY god would have come up with the idea that his creation would need food to begin with. Presumably neither god nor the angels need physical sustenance to survive (though god does enjoy the smell of roasting meat...), so just how would the idea have even occurred to him, and why did he think it would be a good idea? Just as something to attach more rules to, to ensure that more people fell short of the mark and into sin? 

Plus,if we did not need to eat, we would not have to excrete, and just think how much less disease we would have to deal with right there!


Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #72 on: May 08, 2015, 11:00:17 AM »
These 'rules' - how much they seem like the rules a king or clan chieftain might make for their subjects. They usually sound like very fiddly, fussy things. Yet, if any rules were made by a universe creating deity, one would have expected them to interested in thing that mattered and not petty rules about what to eat and how to wash things - like beds.

So, in answer to the OP, I would accept any rules at all as long as I can see the ruler pronouncing them for people to hear. That is, whilst I don't need to hear, say, our own queen giving out laws to obey them - I have seen her lots of times so I know she is there - I do need to see any deity as, to date, all we have are rules written down by unknown people so long ago that we will never know who they were and whether they just made the rules up or not.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline YRM_DM

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1280
  • Darwins +425/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #73 on: May 08, 2015, 12:56:55 PM »
You guys are always complaining about how God's rules are stupid and pointless and that even if He was real, you wouldn't follow Him.

So my questions to you guys are:

What rules would you accept from God?
Would you respect any rules given to us by God?
Do you think the concept of God having rules for us is stupid?
Do you think there should be any rules at all from God?
 

Why or why not?

Jesus had a pretty good one with "love your neighbor as yourself".  That's worth trying to do.

I guess I'd just imagine a perfect God wouldn't contradict himself with his own rules?

Like... Love one another, forgive, do not kill - unless someone disobeys me even accidentally, then kill them with stones!

Imagine, if, the ten commandments were like this...


1 - Treat each other as you'd want to be treated, and to that end...
2 - Do not purposely lie to harm another person's welfare...
3 - Do not kill other people, and, I promise not to order you to kill other people five minutes after Moses is done reading this.
4 - I want you guys to try to stay married, to have happy, stable families.  Honor the members of your family, respect your parents, wives, husbands and children.  Don't be a player.
5 - Don't rape... no means no.
6 - Slavery is bad, m'kay?  Would you want to be owned and beaten?  No right?  So don't own people... period... ever.
7 - Feel free to ask questions.  Discovery is how you learn.  I'm real, so, I'll prove it when needed, so I'm not threatened by questions like the people who invented me would be if I was imaginary.
8 - If you are trying to help when you can, and avoid causing harm when possible... feel good about yourselves!  Don't envy others.  I am smart enough not to expect you all to be perfect.
9 - Don't worry about other gods before me... I'm the only one, and I can prove that, so, I'm not insecure like I would be if someone invented me and they were trying to protect their imaginary story.
10 - Take care of yourselves... stay away from hard drugs and don't do anything to harmful excess.   Take care of each other when you can.

And if you have any questions, don't worry... I'll be around, I won't just talk privately to Prophets and give them contradictory orders.  I won't order prophets to order you guys to kill, steal, rape and worse after I just said not to.  Wouldn't that be silly?

I'm real so, I can actually protect you if needed, and, I'll show up in some way to help guide you along.

Best of luck kiddos!
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 12:58:55 PM by YRM_DM »
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3363
  • Darwins +382/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #74 on: May 08, 2015, 02:09:55 PM »
However, when a rule is "from God," it is supposed to be an exception to, well, the rule, of how we respond to rules.  We are supposed to Just Obey, without question, without even thinking about whether the rule is morally good or makes any sense whatsoever.  Not because the rule is good, helpful, sensible, or just, but because of who (supposedly) issued it.  The rule should be obeyed because of the putative deity's status and authority, rather than anything having to do with the content or effects of the rule itself.  When it comes to Yahweh, we're supposed to adopt the Nuremberg Defense as a way of life.

The Nuremberg Defence is a horrible way to live.  Obeying rules simply for the sake of not disobeying the rulegiver makes a complete mockery of the concept of morality itself.  Obedience is not morality.  Period.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +858/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2015, 03:35:10 PM »
The Nuremberg Defence is a horrible way to live.  Obeying rules simply for the sake of not disobeying the rulegiver makes a complete mockery of the concept of morality itself.  Obedience is not morality.  Period.

Exactly.  Why do you think Yahweh (or to be more precise, the iron age priests and kings who invented him) regarded the human development of moral consciousness as "the Original Sin?" :)  Funny though, how Abrahamic theists like to claim they own the patent and trademark on morality, while rejecting the very idea.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +858/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #76 on: May 08, 2015, 03:41:32 PM »
It depends on what kind of a person the god is and whether his rules are worth living under.

You see, skeptic, if there really were gods, it would be extremely unlikely that there would only be one.  This isn't Divine Highlander, after all.

I have always disagreed with this. One God is much better. Why do you think you never see a ship with 2 captains?

Why yes, of course!  Multiple agents engaging in deliberation in order to make consensus decisions or agree on rules is impossible!  That's why every single government on Earth is an absolute monarchy, and why every organization, from giant multinational corporations down to the local bowling league, must be run by a single person with absolute control.  There'd be chaos otherwise, right?

(Did I mention something about Skep taking an authoritarian approach? ;) )
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +29/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #77 on: May 10, 2015, 07:36:03 AM »
These 'rules' - how much they seem like the rules a king or clan chieftain might make for their subjects. They usually sound like very fiddly, fussy things. Yet, if any rules were made by a universe creating deity, one would have expected them to interested in thing that mattered and not petty rules about what to eat and how to wash things - like beds.
In regards to the fiddly and fussy things it has to be kept in mind that you don't really create a sense of being controlled in your subjects if all your rules are sensible.

I once read the very fitting explanation that when you come up with a religion you don't control people by telling them they are free. You control them (even when you are not there to oversee) by introducing lots of fiddly rules to intrude into daily live. The more rules there are to be observed, the more likely it is for people to slip. So they will have to come and ask for forgiveness for breaking them.

Most rules will look like they have a reason behind them on first sight but on a closer look they turn out to be just rules to be observed for the sake of being observed.

The ban on pork would be one such example. Another would be the Muslim washing ritual before prayer. Keeping clean does sound sensible until you get to the point that the ritual can be performed with your socks still on by just touching the top of your foot with wet hands as long as your feet were ritually cleaned before you put on the socks. This practice is allowed for residents for 24 hours and for travelers for up to 72 hours. Which makes it clear this is also a ritual for the sake of having a ritual and not for practical reasons.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4963
  • Darwins +140/-653
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2015, 11:56:52 AM »
So many responses. I can not possibly reply to them all. I just want you guys to know that I have read your thoughts and thought about them.

Some of the points are actually pretty good. But, it is not enough to shake my faith. I believe that God has His reasons for the rules He makes, and we just have to trust Him.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5620
  • Darwins +184/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2015, 12:16:37 PM »
So many responses. I can not possibly reply to them all. I just want you guys to know that I have read your thoughts and thought about them.

Some of the points are actually pretty good. But, it is not enough to shake my faith. I believe that God has His reasons for the rules He makes, and we just have to trust Him.
Keep coming back Skep,your faith will soon be questioned more and more as the illusion starts to fall apart.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1963
  • Darwins +75/-11
  • Gender: Male
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #80 on: May 10, 2015, 12:28:30 PM »
Skep, no offense, but sometimes I think it's not faith in god I'm lacking, it's faith in people.  :-\

Happy Mother's Day Skep, even though every day is Father's Day for you; don't forget to call him too, seems like you guys need to hash things out.
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #81 on: May 10, 2015, 12:35:24 PM »
It's not so much us not knowing why god wants certain rules or more whether it is god or man who invented them. not eating pork and shellfish and not having mixed fibres in clothes sounds more like man-made rules, doesn't it? Peace, love etc. would seem more like the rules a god might make, though even a Stone Age villager would probably want those too!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8440
  • Darwins +887/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #82 on: May 10, 2015, 01:10:21 PM »
You guys are always complaining about how God's rules are stupid and pointless and that even if He was real, you wouldn't follow Him.

So my questions to you guys are:

What rules would you accept from God?
Would you respect any rules given to us by God?
Do you think the concept of God having rules for us is stupid?
Do you think there should be any rules at all from God?
There is a huge problem with rules. They are often cast in stone and, although circumstances change, the rules don't. We see this in Islam - an unaltered Koran and altering times leads to society being trapped in the Dark Ages.

The Bible suffers the same - "God's Word is unchanging since we were all wandering around in robes and stoning people."

The US constitution is a case in point also - the most popular is the "freedom of speech" part, the most contentious is the "right to bear arms" part. Those who drafted the constitution made a really good choice with "freedom of speech" and a bad one with the "arms" but the rest is pretty bland stuff.

The UK has no constitution and I would oppose any attempt at introducing one. Instead, the UK has "Common Law", the decisions of judges as to how personal dealings will be conducted - it is all very adaptable and results in flexible justice.

Thus God was an idiot for having Moses write things in stone - I'd have expected more of an omniscient god...
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #83 on: May 10, 2015, 02:12:05 PM »
... although the USA can and does alter its constitution ans the Christian community has altered its views too - especially on slavery!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #84 on: May 10, 2015, 05:34:35 PM »
Rules that cannot be changed and that must be obeyed without question (even if the rules are good ones that make sense) are the province of a totalitarian dictatorship. A country of slaves, ruled by fear and brute force.

North Korea. 1984. Saudi Arabia. Pol Pot. Stalin. Mao.

Not Eden. Not paradise.

I don't see how skeptic thinks we get closer to paradise by following rules that just don't make sense--or are even clearly negative, immoral and cruel-- on the off chance that the rule giver "has reasons". When in history has this ever turned out well? Do we need to revisit the "would you do X horrible thing if god told you to?" question? We already know that skeptic, Jst and a few other theists here would do just about anything if they thought it was god telling them to do it. Eat this, don't drink that, read this, don't wear that. Think this way about those people. Think another way about those other people. Have this unnecessary risky painful medical procedure. Never have this other medical procedure, even if it might save your life.  :o

We ethical atheists seem to be outnumbered by people willing to "just follow orders" to some extent, as long as the order purport to come from god. The wonder is not that Hitler, Mugabe, Idi Amin, Tito, Castro and other dictators manage to get people to follow them and obey their orders. The wonder is that there are any countries that are not totalitarian dictatorships.....
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5056
  • Darwins +1082/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #85 on: May 12, 2015, 10:13:00 AM »
So many responses. I can not possibly reply to them all. I just want you guys to know that I have read your thoughts and thought about them.

Some of the points are actually pretty good. But, it is not enough to shake my faith. I believe that God has His reasons for the rules He makes, and we just have to trust Him.

Satan masquerades as an angel of light. He'll be very nice to you if you're worshiping him. He will make you think you are worshiping God. He will give you things and you will think it's God giving them to you. He'll be your best pal, your best buddy....until the End Times when he will just laugh at you.

I keep hoping that, eventually, you're going to figure out why I keep throwing this back at you.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: To The Atheists: What Would You Accept As "God's Rules?"
« Reply #86 on: May 12, 2015, 10:25:09 AM »
Anyone remember the theist poster who said (after denying the global stats for a few pages) that secular places are indeed nicer than the religious ones.But that is only because Satan is more active in the places where people believe in god. He has given up on the secular places, so yeah, they have better health, less poverty and less crime.

The twisted logical sudoku there was astounding. Accepting the facts, then grinding them into a powder to sprinkle onto your religious stew. 

And how about that flabby, weak, useless god that lets Satan do the worst to his most faithful children? Definitely worthy of devotion and worship. :P
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?