Is God better than you?

[Wootah]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

[Athetotheist]

Never mind atheists thinking they're better----how much of Jehovah's alleged behavior would you find noble and honorable in other gods? Would you think it praiseworthy if Zeus had destroyed the world with a flood? If Osiris had ordered the slaughter of the women and children of the Amalekites? If Tammuz had struck Bathsheba's first child to sicken and die for David's offense? How much slack would you cut any other deity for some of the actions attributed to Jehovah?

[Miles]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

If you can repeat your statement I'll repeat my reply:

"Perhaps that's because they don't see god as any more noble, honorable, and understanding than any other mythical character."

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

Please rephrase.

......... Thank you.


.

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

I would suspect that what I call 'Thinking atheists' would question that the god of the Bible is better than the best morals that humanity can produce. I am reminded of a remark in the mustwatch video 'losing Faith' (Theramin trees) who examined the Bible and his Faith in trying to justify it and found himself thinking: "I could do better than this".

I would also suspect that atheists who think about it come to see the value of morality in social structure and of logical reasoning and critical thinking. This will tend to make them better persons than otherwise they might have been, though I doubt that they would hold themselves up as more noble, honourable and understanding than anyone else.

[nobspeople]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

So long as they're not a murdering deity that acts like a child, I could see why some may think them 'better than god'. But that thinking doesn't stop with atheists and their belief.
How can atheist claim god is better than them, if they don't believe in said god? That seems like a baiting question.

Christians seem to think themselves better, smarter, more moral, etc than non-christians - some on this very site. Idea!

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

So long as they're not a murdering deity that acts like a child, I could see why some may think them 'better than god'. But that thinking doesn't stop with atheists and their belief.
How can atheist claim god is better than them, if they don't believe in said god? That seems like a baiting question.

Christians seem to think themselves better, smarter, more moral, etc than non-christians - some on this very site. Idea!

Yres, It is plainly a baiting or provocative or needling question, but it's all right because Theists think can't stand that but rational think welcomes it because ether we say 'That's a good point. We can do better' or we explain where the accusation, smear, canard or swipe is wring and it makes the accuser look bad.

Plainly the ...damn' what was it...? not strawman, what's the word for a 'have you stopped beating your wife?' argument? Loaded question. Yes. Loaded. That was pretty clumsily Loaded so the atheist would either have to say that they are more noble, honorable and understanding than God (in which case we would sound more insufferable than we actually are ) or we would have to admit that we are morally not up to God's standard.

Pretty cunning when you think of it, but more clumsily telegraphed than one of 4 Hollywood swordsman waiting their turn to take on the Hero so as to make him look like he's able to fight three skilled opponents at once.

[nobspeople]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

So long as they're not a murdering deity that acts like a child, I could see why some may think them 'better than god'. But that thinking doesn't stop with atheists and their belief.
How can atheist claim god is better than them, if they don't believe in said god? That seems like a baiting question.

Christians seem to think themselves better, smarter, more moral, etc than non-christians - some on this very site. Idea!

Yres, It is plainly a baiting or provocative or needling question, but it's all right because Theists think can't stand that but rational think welcomes it because ether we say 'That's a good point. We can do better' or we explain where the accusation, smear, canard or swipe is wring and it makes the accuser look bad.

Plainly the ...damn' what was it...? not strawman, what's the word for a 'have you stopped beating your wife?' argument? Loaded question. Yes. Loaded. That was pretty clumsily Loaded so the atheist would either have to say that they are more noble, honorable and understanding than God (in which case we would sound more insufferable than we actually are ) or we would have to admit that we are morally not up to God's standard.

Pretty cunning when you think of it, but more clumsily telegraphed than one of 4 Hollywood swordsman waiting their turn to take on the Hero so as to make him look like he's able to fight three skilled opponents at once.

The Hollywood comment was spot on. But it seems, like many audiences that put up with that 'directing' (or the 'bad guy' with the gun that has to go on a diatribe about his 'badness' while the hero climbs to the top of the roof and readies a 'from above' attack and saves the captor), some people think it's perfectly acceptable.
I wouldn't call it 'cunning' at all, to be honest.
Might as well ask someone who doesn't believe in aliens from outer space what they think of 'the greys'.

It also makes me think some people don't respect atheists and think them stupid enough to fall for this ploy. Which is sad. And insulting.

[JoeyKnothead]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

A good bunch of that's apt to be cause atheists can be shown to exist, that their properties can be determined to some extent.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

I can say it don't please me to see babies bashed against rocks.

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focussing on morality better than them?

So long as they're not a murdering deity that acts like a child, I could see why some may think them 'better than god'. But that thinking doesn't stop with atheists and their belief.
How can atheist claim god is better than them, if they don't believe in said god? That seems like a baiting question.

Christians seem to think themselves better, smarter, more moral, etc than non-christians - some on this very site. Idea!

Yres, It is plainly a baiting or provocative or needling question, but it's all right because Theists think can't stand that but rational think welcomes it because ether we say 'That's a good point. We can do better' or we explain where the accusation, smear, canard or swipe is wring and it makes the accuser look bad.

Plainly the ...damn' what was it...? not strawman, what's the word for a 'have you stopped beating your wife?' argument? Loaded question. Yes. Loaded. That was pretty clumsily Loaded so the atheist would either have to say that they are more noble, honorable and understanding than God (in which case we would sound more insufferable than we actually are ) or we would have to admit that we are morally not up to God's standard.

Pretty cunning when you think of it, but more clumsily telegraphed than one of 4 Hollywood swordsman waiting their turn to take on the Hero so as to make him look like he's able to fight three skilled opponents at once.

The Hollywood comment was spot on. But it seems, like many audiences that put up with that 'directing' (or the 'bad guy' with the gun that has to go on a diatribe about his 'badness' while the hero climbs to the top of the roof and readies a 'from above' attack and saves the captor), some people think it's perfectly acceptable.
I wouldn't call it 'cunning' at all, to be honest.
Might as well ask someone who doesn't believe in aliens from outer space what they think of 'the greys'.

It also makes me think some people don't respect atheists and think them stupid enough to fall for this ploy. Which is sad. And insulting.

Cunning is as cunning does as they say, as it is a crafty ploy but not hard to spot. Hollywood is of course fantasy and (I think I mentioned Stratotrek recently with regard to a more enlightened and morally advanced society, still had to be written within the Genre of existing film and TV. Westerns, War films, 'a monster is loose', detectives and even a couple of courtroom dramas. Otherwise... no story. It's ok to have the baddies slinking, about twirling their moustache or moustaches while the Noble hero spouts platitudes about Honor and Decency before hitting him in the face with a table, so long as one knows it's just storytelling, not real life, where you hit someone in the face with a table because your team got beat or you couldn't find anywhere to park.

It's ok if you don't take it too seriously. Very often the discussion was not about the message in the film, or show but discussion about the views in the show or their character. There was actually a video presentation on how Spock's 'logical' character was actually a logical fallacy ('The Straw Vulcan'), and told us more about... ingrained attitudes about how logic supposedly turns people into amoral robots. The series groped about how too much was lost without emotion but also that just emotion without control was worse (I think "in a mirror Darkly" was the relevant episode) and these dilemmas were better bases of discussion than the 'problems' (loosely based on the cold war written up in the stories.

Anyway. I suppose the point is that the Rationalists have to think beyond the oh -so- easy polemical banana - skins tossed in front of the atheists who, if they spot them, usually have enough brain -cells handy to step around them.

And a merry whatever to you all.

[Purple Knight]

Are any atheists willing to admit that the God of the Bible is better in all senses of the word but focusing on morality better than them?

Sure, but that entity can't help me get to where it is, because its morality comes by virtue of 1) infinite knowledge and 2) being good by definition.

1) God has infinite knowledge, so it won't make a mistake. If it tries to do what is good, what will have the best benefit, it simply will. There are no moral quandaries for God. Whatever result it wishes, it achieves. It's not like a mortal being with limited information that must agonise over whether it is doing "the right thing" or not.

2) God made the rules of morality, so asking me to win that game is absurd. Since I don't make the rules of morality, I can't be that moral. If I did, I could. But since I don't, I can't. God can also do whatever it wishes to do and simply define that action as good. It has that power because it has every power. I lack that power.

Do you want to level the playing field and ask who would be kinder if both I and God had equal power and knowledge? I expect we would be equally kind because the capacity for irrationality would disappear with any deficit in information. We would also have the same goals, both being universe-level supercomputers. Irrational goals would disappear. Selfishness would effectively disappear with omnipotence because I can now have anything I want without hurting anyone. Let's say I'm the worst person imaginable, a murderer and a thief and a rapist. Well, why do I do that when I'm godlike? Whatever I got by murdering and stealing and raping, I can just have that, so I would imagine I'd no longer go through the bother.

So if there's some morality beyond definition, that also accounts for difference in power and knowledge, to me it looks like we're all the same, including God. We're all just beings trying to get by and make the best choices we can, which, if we are raised to the level of God, becomes perfect choices and we're just as perfect.

But, you might say, a person has evil in his heart and that doesn't necessarily go away with omnipotence and omniscience; it's possible for a being to be evil and omnipotent and omniscient. I would be careful of saying that because God is no longer good by definition and might be evil as well, and must answer for his actions in the same manner, and to the same standard, as we do. If omnipotence and omniscience don't make one good, it's a fair ask whether the god of this universe is a good one or not. We might be wrong in applying our standard to it, we might be mistaken, but we also might not be because God might be doing any of these things out of sadism and evil, and we don't make a habit of excusing people for hurting others even if they have information we lack and might have been doing the right thing. Morality beyond definition would mean, the same standard. You might have more information than me and you might have been doing right by murder. I'm not required to care because that invites the evil to simply say, irrefutably, "I know best." We must ignore it when someone says, "I know best," even though this could always be true.

We can't judge God. Well, that's technically not true. We can, we just might be mistaken. We also can't judge one another with 100% accuracy either. We do still assess murder, thievery, and rape, however. And if we stopped doing that, society would crumble.

If God is more noble and moral than I am, we have to look at why that is. If it's because of a difference in power and knowledge that I have no way of obtaining then as I see it, I'm excused. If it's because of some moral action that he would take and I would not, I think we have to pick this apart further. Why? Am I being selfish? Do I think hurting others is permissible for my own ends (...hmmm... like God actually does... because... he's justified and I'm not?)...? Is the problem not reducible then, to, why am I not justified? Why are my ends bad ones? Isn't that reducible to my lack of information?

With a fair (level playing field) assessment, in addition to asking what I would look like if godlike, we also must ask, what would God look like if mortal? The idea that you wouldn't have a spoilt prince wreaking havoc fundamentally assumes God keeps his perfection. God is used to wiping out populations when he sees fit. God is used to punishing harshly people who break with his rules. These are the correct actions for someone who knows 100% that he is in the right. But we must ask, would these behaviours change if God became mortal? To say yes you're implying it's pattycake-level-easy for a being to simply start acting oppositely to the way it's always acted before when it never knew anything else (and don't forget, is now imperfect and mortal, and makes mistakes).

That's why my level-playing-field assessment isn't that I'm better than God, it's that I'm equal to God, and that everyone else ought to make the same assessment.

My in-reality assessment is that I'm much less moral than God, but why that has value when one party has massive advantages is beyond me. It's like asking me to win a game of chess against a vastly superior opponent while starting with fewer pieces. Yes I lose that one. It's a stacked deck.