What would an unloving, unjust, unfair God be like?

[ch4rl3s]

@Der Trihs

Societies worse off when God is on their side. I can quote studies too. And given the near-compulsive dishonesty of believers, I see no reason to believe the study you quoted. And given the harm religion has caused and is causing, I see no reason to care even if it’s true.

from the study I quoted:

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which represents the interests of atheists and agnostics, said that studies purporting to show a link between happiness and religion were “all meaningless”.

Yep, not surprised that you might ignore out of hand anything that doesn’t fulfil your preset conclusion.

@Der Trihs

Both we, and the world are nowhere near any sort of ideal. We are a deeply flawed species in a world that is grossly inferior to one that we could design, if we had the power. That disproves any benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god.

You’ve consistantly stated this. That because you would create an ideal world, God would have no other choice. And you’ve consistantly denied that there could be any reason to do otherwise. You’ve also refused to try to explore any other possible motives or reasons.

@Der Trihs

I don’t CARE what your supernatural tyrant’s motives are. Assuming he even exists, all I know is the results of his supposed actions, which are enough to condemn him as a monster.

“So, a man walked into a building the other day and shot three people dead. I don’t need to know his motives to declare it as an evil act. I don’t need to know the situation. I don’t CARE that he was wearing a blue uniform. I don’t care that the people shot were wearing masks and carrying guns. It doesn’t matter, he’s evil.”

@matt

Exactly! To teach them responsibility, turn the heat off in winter and turn it up to full in summer. Throw them out of the house entirely once in a while. Put liver flukes in their drinking water, malaria mosquitos in their rooms. Give them 2000 calories of food between them occasionally and let them share it, or if they get too hungry, fight over it. It’s for their own good.

@Der Trihs

Have you ever actually bothered to read any history ? Genocides, plagues, short lifespans, natural disasters, rotten food, no food, birth defects, ignorance, and on and on. History is a horror show. Your wonderful God dumped his “children” into the wilderness with no education and stone tools, leaving them to claw themselves up to where we are now. No thanks to him, even if he exists. Assuming he exists, we owe him nothing but hate.

Not only do you, and others, have trouble with the concept of “hypothetical,” as I demonstrated before, you also have distinct trouble with the concept of “analogy.”

Yes, you can find things about being a human parent that a so called benevolent god hasn’t done. Of course the analogy breaks down. Every analogy breaks down. If it didn’t break down it wouldn’t be an analogy. That doesn’t invalidate the point. And it’s an invalid debating tactic to discard to proposed analogy because you find where it breaks down.

“Do you know what a basketball is?”
“No.”
“Well, it’s a little like a tennis ball in that it’s a piece of rubber with air in it that bounces and is used in a game. And it’s a little like an orange in that the skin is orange and has a bumpy texture. And it’s about the size of a watermelon.”
“But it isn’t yellow and small like a tennis ball? Or filled with fruit like an orange or a watermelon?”
“No.”
"Ah ha. Got you. It doesn’t fit all aspects of them, so I reject everything you said.

If God had every aspect of a human parent, then he would be a human parent, with the motive, as you seem to assume he must have, to raise a human infant to become a human adult in this world. And therefore, must keep that child from disease, etc. But, no one has ever claimed that he’s trying to raise human adults to live in this world. So, that motive and the actions needed for that purpose don’t necessarily apply.

You don’t seem to want to try to look at what such a being would want to raise us into, either. (Though that would be the logical way to extrapolate such an analogy, and not by trying to extrapolate him down to fit a mortal parent.) Although your post does remind me distinctly of a lot of human child I’ve known. Most have, at some point, said some thing like “my parents didn’t give me ‘x’, so they can’t love me. I don’t care what their motives are, and I won’t try to examine them. Their motives MUST be mine. They didn’t do what I know is best, so they’re evil.” Most children grow out of that mind set.

…
Sorry, to have to leave it at this, (almost,) but my guest account expires soon, and I don’t really have a desire to pay to have to try to explain “logic” and “hypothetical” and “analogy” to those who are supposedly supporting the “rational” viewpoint.

[ch4rl3s]

Grammatical errors in these sentences…

@ch4rl3s

That doesn’t invalidate the point. And it’s an invalid debating tactic to discard **to ** proposed analogy because you find where it breaks down.

Although your post does remind me distinctly of a lot of human **child ** I’ve known.

Should read:
That doesn’t invalidate the point. And it’s an invalid debating tactic to discard **the ** proposed analogy because you find where it breaks down.

Although your post does remind me distinctly of a lot of human **children ** I’ve known.
…

Although, you can distinctly see what I meant even without the correction.

[Der_Trihs]

@ch4rl3s

Yep, not surprised that you might ignore out of hand anything that doesn’t fulfil your preset conclusion.

Some self appointed advocate declaring that something is “meaningless” doesn’t make it so. You are trying to treat me like another believer, who mindlessly follows self appointed sources of revelation.

@ch4rl3s

That because you would create an ideal world, God would have no other choice. And you’ve consistantly denied that there could be any reason to do otherwise. You’ve also refused to try to explore any other possible motives or reasons.

That’s not a very coherent statement ( “you would create an ideal world, God would have no other choice” ? :dubious: " ), but what I have consistently said is that a benevolent God wouldn’t create a world as awful as this one, or a species as defective and limited as ours. Motive is irrelevant.

@ch4rl3s

“So, a man walked into a building the other day and shot three people dead. I don’t need to know his motives to declare it as an evil act. I don’t need to know the situation. I don’t CARE that he was wearing a blue uniform. I don’t care that the people shot were wearing masks and carrying guns. It doesn’t matter, he’s evil.”

A rather obviously incorrect analogy. More like, "A man broke into a family’s home, and shot everyone in a leg so they couldn’t escape. He then systematically beat the husband with a lead pipe, raped the wife and cut off her nose and ears. He then flayed the children alive while the parents watched. "

There is NO possible justification for the evil and misery we see. None. And your attempt to make God into a figure of legitimate authority is also incorrect. He has no right to order our lives.

@ch4rl3s

Not only do you, and others, have trouble with the concept of “hypothetical,” as I demonstrated before, you also have distinct trouble with the concept of “analogy.”

No, I simply think that your hypotheticals and analogies are extremely bad ones.

@ch4rl3s

You don’t seem to want to try to look at what such a being would want to raise us into, either.

No, I don’t CARE. No possible motive can justify the methods used. Do I care why a parent tortures his children to death, or molests them ? No.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

@ch4rl3s

without discernible reason.
Why don’t we look at the balance of happiness and misery in the world with a scientific eye?

religion and happiness link

There are other studies, but, generally, the consensus is that belief makes you happier, even in socioeconomic situations that most people would expect to lead to despair.

So, that indicates that there may be a personal or social benefit to belief, even if God doesn’t exist. So, for this and other reasons, I am an advocate for belief in things-that-may-not-be-true.

It’s interesting how you chose this single point from my lengthy argument to battle while completely side-stepping the rest of it. Not only that, but with the part that you did quote, your post doesn’t actually address the point I was making there either.

Just because people may be “happier” with religion in no way refutes the argument that there’s no discernible reason given the evidence at hand for a supernatural explanation for the universe as it is. You seem to be arguing with this post that because religion makes people happier, it necessarily proves the existence of a higher power. OR you aren’t actually addressing my argument at all and are simply straying to a side point for some unexplained reason.

I’m leaning towards the 2nd reason. I get the feeling that I’m arguing one side, perhaps incommunicably, and you’re hearing something completely different.

On a final note, how does the individual or social benefit of religion fit into this argument at all? What would an unloving, unjust, unfair God be like? A belief in a benevolent god might make you happier, but how does that mesh with the thread?