An atheists world

[EternalDragon]

lol you have to be trolling. I called Adam and Eve children because earlier I said they were naive. How can I avoid a question which is not relevant yet alone sensible.
How on earth does crime and childhood hold any relevancy to the conversation? None. That is primarily because you are talking in circles.

You are giving yourself too much credit.

I believe I was simply asking a question, not talking in circles.

Disobeying God in the garden is the same as disobeying current laws, such as speeding, robbery, murder, etc. There is no difference and adults disobey those laws.

I do not consider Adam and Eve to be naive nor children and there is no scriptural support for the notion that they were.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A omnipresent, omnipotent God whose creation is always said to be a world with mistakes. Yet, Christians know God knows the beginning and the end, that God has purpose for everything. I would like to hear how someone (atheist, or anyone), how they would do it differently; and let both science and theology pick apart at the suggestions based on facts today.

Hmmm ... You are going to play God? You aren't the first one, nor will you be the last.

But in any case, I would make the moon another color. Blue with yellow polka dots!

 

[toLiJC]

A omnipresent, omnipotent God whose creation is always said to be a world with mistakes. Yet, Christians know God knows the beginning and the end, that God has purpose for everything. I would like to hear how someone (atheist, or anyone), how they would do it differently; and let both science and theology pick apart at the suggestions based on facts today.

Example:

Joe the atheist: I would make the earth without grass; grass was a bad idea.

Joanne the atheist or creationist: What would the cows eat?

Joe the atheist: people

Berry: People?; so the people that remain don't have the strength to slaughter these beasts?

And so on...............

I will start with:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3 KJV)

this dialogue seems to be between the creators of jurassic park

on the topic, the world would be better without the evil, but unfortunately the evil turned out more or less inevitable, and the worst is that the evil will also exist in the first 5-6 millennia of each subsequent eternity just as it was till now in the present eternity, that is why there is a need of enough show of love in the faith for the others

Blessings

 

[HitchSlap]

To the OP:

For starters, I would have added a couple of sentences to my holy book prohibiting rape, slavery and genocide. Secondly, I would have revealed myself to every culture and ethnicity in every epoch of time so as to remove all doubt of my existence. Thirdly, I wouldn't hang a "gone fishing" sign on my door and disappear for thousands of years. And lastly, I would update my holy book at least every ten years to reflect the current social environment.

(and I never would have created an arch enemy)

 

[Loudmouth]

Joe the atheist: I would make the earth without grass; grass was a bad idea.

Joanne the atheist or creationist: What would the cows eat?

Joe the atheist: people

Berry: People?; so the people that remain don't have the strength to slaughter these beasts?

What?

 

[HitchSlap]

What?

The guy has trouble with syntax and grammar, what did you expect?

 

[And-U-Say]

Left up to Mother Nature, the odds of life occurring on its own in the universe is 10[sup]40,000[/sup].

Given that 10[sup]50[/sup] is sufficient to say that something cannot happen: evolution is mathematically impossible.

SOURCE

Absolutely wrong.

And AiG is a terrible source for information. Nothing but lies.

 

[And-U-Say]

That is called free will. Would you prefer to have all your actions controlled like a puppet? What kind of life would that be?

I am making a list...

Answer #1: "I would control all of my creations actions like a puppet master. They would have no free will."

Let me fix this for you...

Answer #1a: "I would give all my creations free will, but would take an active role in teaching and guiding them towards understanding how to use that free will. Just like a human parent ought to do with their children. I will not stand back and do nothing and them blame them for not knowing what I could so easily teach them."

Answer #1b: "I would not burden and distort my creations with instincts and a sub conscience inherited from an evolutionary past. Since I don't want them to believe in evolution anyway, it would be best to take that stuff out. And it would dramatically improve their behavior towards one another and towards themselves."

Answer #1c: "I would increase their intellect so they could better perceive what proper behavior is and act appropriately."

Answer #1d: "I would remove the tendency for gullibility so they can better perceive right and wrong and not listen to religious hucksters. This will decimate the ranks of those who claim to have heard my "call", but in the end will work out ever so much better.

See how easy it is to be smarter than god!

 

[And-U-Say]

I can watch a rerun of Jeopardy 10[sup]10[/sup] times, until I know exactly how each one is going to answer; and who is going to win, and who blows his nose, etc.

In other words, I can watch it until I'm nearly omniscient on that particular episode, and it is not going to change the fact that they had freewill throughout the program.

you are making the case here that god has no free will. Is that what you want to do?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Hmmm ... You are going to play God? You aren't the first one, nor will you be the last.

But in any case, I would make the moon another color. Blue with yellow polka dots!

Would the reflection of the moon be affected?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Would the reflection of the moon be affected?

No.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I would also put fossilized Swiss watches on mountain tops!

 

[toolmanjantzi]

To the OP:

For starters, I would have added a couple of sentences to my holy book prohibiting rape, slavery and genocide. Secondly, I would have revealed myself to every culture and ethnicity in every epoch of time so as to remove all doubt of my existence. Thirdly, I wouldn't hang a "gone fishing" sign on my door and disappear for thousands of years. And lastly, I would update my holy book at least every ten years to reflect the current social environment.

(and I never would have created an arch enemy)

So, would there be evil still? You seem to be able to reveal yourself to all humans, yet in the case for God, they would die if He revealed Himself. Before there was a good system like WELFARE (lol), you believe that it's wrong to work for a place to sleep and eat, and for someone to provide that in return for work?
You say you would prohibit rape? The bible does also. Capital punishment was the cure for rape. A man having sex with a unmarried women who has been found doing so, was required to marry the girl. Remember people were not 35 when they got married.

I like the updating of your Holy Book. But it sounds much like the laws of the US, being changed every time someone has a new sexual fetish. Do you think eventually the only laws that are created are only boundaries for the sins that they allow?

So, you have no arch enemy that means everyone loves you? Would there be such thing as free choice in your world then? If so, when disease is rampant and 90% of the world are infected with a deadly disease; how would you protect the %10 left from the 90%?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said:



Back to the Easter Bunny. Would there not eventually be lying. If one was to accept the norm.

Are you being purposefully thick?

Read my post please. To accept an idea someone would have to give strong evidence for it first.

I am unaware of any evidence for the Easter Bunny or other fictional being. Just as there is no evidence that I know of for God.

 

[Skaloop]

I can watch a rerun of Jeopardy 10[sup]10[/sup] times, until I know exactly how each one is going to answer; and who is going to win, and who blows his nose, etc.

In other words, I can watch it until I'm nearly omniscient on that particular episode, and it is not going to change the fact that they had freewill throughout the program.

Yeah, but can you say the same if you could do all that while watching it for the very first time?

Or, to go at this from another angle, if you are watching that rerun all those 10[sup]10[/sup] times, is it ever possible that one of the contestants gives a different response even just once? Say you have it memorized after 10[sup]5[/sup] viewings; would anything ever be different in the other 10[sup]5[/sup] viewings?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, would there be evil still?

Ask yourself this . . .

Let's say that your child was sick, and all he needs is some antibiotics to get better. If your child does not get those antibiotics, your child dies.

Do you give your child antibiotics? Yes or no?

By giving your child antibiotics, are you taking that child's free will away? Yes or no?

By revealing your existence to your child, are you taking away their free will? Yes or no?

Even more importantly, would you create the deadly bacteria that is killing your child and allow it to infect your child to begin with? Yes or no?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Let me fix this for you...

Answer #1a: "I would give all my creations free will, but would take an active role in teaching and guiding them towards understanding how to use that free will. Just like a human parent ought to do with their children. I will not stand back and do nothing and them blame them for not knowing what I could so easily teach them."

So, how would the biological parents ever learn to be a parent if God always intervened?

Answer #1b: "I would not burden and distort my creations with instincts and a sub conscience inherited from an evolutionary past. Since I don't want them to believe in evolution anyway, it would be best to take that stuff out. And it would dramatically improve their behavior towards one another and towards themselves."

So, they won't think for themselves all the time?

Answer #1c: "I would increase their intellect so they could better perceive what proper behavior is and act appropriately."

The Bible has a similar story. Solomon the richest and smartest man to ever live. How did that work out for him?

Answer #1d: "I would remove the tendency for gullibility so they can better perceive right and wrong and not listen to religious hucksters. This will decimate the ranks of those who claim to have heard my "call", but in the end will work out ever so much better.

So, you act like their parent and then you criticize them for believing in you? Why would there be religious hucksters if your well known; after all you raised them. If there is wrong and it is perceived how does being less gullible help to stop men from doing wrong?

See how easy it is to be smarter than god![/QUOTE]

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I would also put fossilized Swiss watches on mountain tops!

Would that work for the watch theory?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Are you being purposefully thick?

Read my post please. To accept an idea someone would have to give strong evidence for it first.

I am unaware of any evidence for the Easter Bunny or other fictional being. Just as there is no evidence that I know of for God.

Are you aware of the OP, and the responses given? Are you OK? Do you need help in this thread? Do you want me to hold your hand?

 

[And-U-Say]

So, how would the biological parents ever learn to be a parent if God always intervened?



So, they won't think for themselves all the time?



The Bible has a similar story. Solomon the richest and smartest man to ever live. How did that work out for him?



So, you act like their parent and then you criticize them for believing in you? Why would there be religious hucksters if your well known; after all you raised them. If there is wrong and it is perceived how does being less gullible help to stop men from doing wrong?

See how easy it is to be smarter than god!

[/QUOTE]

You know, for a christian, you are not very good at this analogy thing, are you. You missed so much here. Are you even capable of abstract thinking?

1a: I am talking about teaching the parents, not teaching the children while the parents do nothing. Isn't that more than obvious?

1b: You don't know what instinct and sub conscience mean, do you. Good lord, man, get a dictionary. Your comment here is meaningless.

1c: Solomen was a fictional character in a fictional story, so not a good basis for example. Also, you have to take all four of these parts together, one of them alone is not necessarily enough.

1d: No, since I would teach them how to live and teach them not to waste any time worshiping me, it would be obvious that hucksters are, well, hucksters. Reading comprehension is your friend.

And yes, it is still easy to be better than god.