God's 'track record'

[nobspeople]

In another thread, a poster said the following:

Does that good track record, overall include eliminating war, hunger, corruption, injustice and suffering?

It made me wonder, how would god's track record rate?

Let's look at biblically supplied highlights (not in chronical order necessarily):
God created everything
Then it made man
Then mad was tempted by satan
This would mean god made satan and allowed satan to tempt man, knowing (if god's all knowing) that man would sin
Then god got mad and pouted like a spoiled child (editorializing a bit there but you get the jest) and made man to suffer through sin and ultimately die
God asks a guy to sacrifice his son, which he tries but then god sends an angel to stop it
God gets upset with a city and obliterates it from the planet
God gets upset with humanity and drowns all terrestrial life (including babies, women in the middle of child birth, animals (which have NOTHING to do with man's sin) and plants)
God THEN offers a sacrifice to sin as himself/son/self/son/self (the debate still lingers as to the specifics of this person)
This person lives a life to his early 30s
God allows a guy to betray himself/son/self/etc and allows history to see this guy as a traitor when, in all actuality, SOME guy had to do this in order to complete god's 'plan'
Then this god/man/god/man dies and raises from the dead
God allows mankind's history to be told in 'the bible', even though there are Es and Os which cause confusion for the remainder of humanity

Being that humanity is IMPERFECT and god (is said to be) PERFECT, we can't legitimately judge the two with the same measurement.
So let's judge god's 'track record':
or
or

How would YOU judge god's work?
How should god's work be judged?

[Veridican]

Well, fine. I tried to engage the atheists, and as usual, I get warnings. Everything I say is considered "offensive" nothing atheists say is considered the same way. It's been this way since the 1990s.

I tried to post an irrefutable argument for the existence of God in the philosophy board, but it was promptly removed. So, I tried. I came to the fight. I showed up.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Veridican in post #37]

What makes no sense at all, is this conversation. If you think there is no God, why the heck would you ever be in a religious forum talking to a whacked-out Christian cultist? If I thought there was no God, eventually, I would also have no interest in the subject of God. You don't see me hanging out in Bigfoot forums, do you? I have a great interest in UFOs, but over time, since there isn't much we can do with the evidence we have, I have lost interest, so I don't hang out in UFO forums.

The only thing that makes the equation here work is that you are not really an atheist.

That's a very strange line of reasoning. What would a debate site look like if everyone shared the same views on topics? The whole point is to debate topics where there are opposing views and have participants on both sides make their arguments. Just because someone doesn't believe that gods exist (ie. an atheist) does not mean that they have no interest in debating the reasons behind that viewpoint with someone who holds the opposing viewpoint.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Veridican in post #37]

What makes no sense at all, is this conversation. If you think there is no God, why the heck would you ever be in a religious forum talking to a whacked-out Christian cultist? If I thought there was no God, eventually, I would also have no interest in the subject of God. You don't see me hanging out in Bigfoot forums, do you? I have a great interest in UFOs, but over time, since there isn't much we can do with the evidence we have, I have lost interest, so I don't hang out in UFO forums.

The only thing that makes the equation here work is that you are not really an atheist.

That's a very strange line of reasoning. What would a debate site look like if everyone shared the same views on topics? The whole point is to debate topics where there are opposing views and have participants on both sides make their arguments. Just because someone doesn't believe that gods exist (ie. an atheist) does not mean that they have no interest in debating the reasons behind that viewpoint with someone who holds the opposing viewpoint.

One sided 'debates' are what some people want. This allows their weak faith to grow. And for some, feeling superior is all that matters, sticking their heads in the sand, as it were.
Thankfully, many posters on this site aren't that way - some are even open minded!

[1213]

I assume this would include his order to kill innocent women and children

By what I know, God does not order killing of innocent people.

and his decision to send bears to maul 42 kids to death because they made fun of some old bald guy;

Is that really what the Bible tells? I remember it differently. But, it is true that all unrighteous people will die and I think it is good, because if they would live eternally, they would make life eternal suffering for all.
In Biblical point of view, the judgment is really about that is person righteous or not. If person is righteous, he does righteous work and if person is not, he produces unrighteous things. What person has produced, tells what kind of person he is. It does not matter how much one has produced, it is enough to know what is the “fruit” of the person to know what type he is and on basis of that it is decided what will happen, as said here:

By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Matt. 7:16-20

and that it was good that god decreed "Any man who has something wrong with him must not serve as priest and bring sacrifices to me. These men cannot serve as priests: blind men, crippled men, men with bad scars on their faces, men with arms or legs that are too long, 19 men with broken feet or hands, 20 men with bent backs, men who are dwarfs, men who are cross-eyed, men with rashes or bad skin diseases, and men with crushed testicles."

So, you think people with disabilities should be made to work? I think that is quite brutal. It is better that those who are healthy, do the work.

…God condoned slavery. Do you think this is a good thing; that owning an other human being as property, and being able to beat them as long as they didn't die within a few days is good? Would you think so if you were that slave?

I think everyone who must pay taxes is a slave. I can accept it, but I think it would be better if people would be free.

What do you think, if you would own a person what works for you, would you really think it is a good idea to beat him? I think it would be incredibly stupid, if you would do so, because then the slave would not produce anything and you would lose production. basically, it is about the same as, if you have for example washing machine, you don’t hit it with ledge hammer, even though you own it, because then it would be useless for you.

Also, I don’t think Bible approves beating anyone.

[Miles]

I assume this would include his order to kill innocent women and children

By what I know, God does not order killing of innocent people.

Sure he does.

1 Samuel 15:1-3
1 One day Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now listen to his message. 2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. . . .

and his decision to send bears to maul 42 kids to death because they made fun of some old bald guy;

Is that really what the Bible tells? I remember it differently.

Then let me refresh your memory:

2 Kings 2:23-24
23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, “Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!”
24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

But, it is true that all unrighteous people will die and I think it is good, because if they would live eternally, they would make life eternal suffering for all.

What does this have to do with god sending bears to slaughter 24 boys simply for making fun of some bald guy? Nothing!

and that it was good that god decreed "Any man who has something wrong with him must not serve as priest and bring sacrifices to me. These men cannot serve as priests: blind men, crippled men, men with bad scars on their faces, men with arms or legs that are too long, 19 men with broken feet or hands, 20 men with bent backs, men who are dwarfs, men who are cross-eyed, men with rashes or bad skin diseases, and men with crushed testicles."

So, you think people with disabilities should be made to work? I think that is quite brutal. It is better that those who are healthy, do the work.

Not "made" to work, but "allowed" to work.

…God condoned slavery. Do you think this is a good thing; that owning an other human being as property, and being able to beat them as long as they didn't die within a few days is good? Would you think so if you were that slave?

I think everyone who must pay taxes is a slave. I can accept it, but I think it would be better if people would be free.

Ever hear of the Equivocation fallacy? I suggest you look it up. In any case, are you owned by someone else as their property, and made to do whatever they demand? "No" and "No."

Also, I don’t think Bible approves beating anyone.

Sure it does.

ap·prove
/əˈpro͞ov/
verb: approve; 3rd person present: approves; past tense: approved; past participle: approved; gerund or present participle: approving

1. officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

as long as that person doesn't die within a day or two.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

.

[Purple Knight]

What makes no sense at all, is this conversation. If you think there is no God, why the heck would you ever be in a religious forum talking to a whacked-out Christian cultist?

Because I might be wrong. Some people, I think, misunderstand the whole point of debate.

If each side thinks, I am right, that's the end of it, you're right, then there is no debate.

I talk to flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists too. I think they are probably wrong, but they might not be. If I didn't have this idea that I might be wrong, it would be as you say and I'd have no reason to engage with anyone about anything.

They believe the earth is flat because the bits they can see are flat and because they have no personally-verifiable evidence that it is instead a sphere. We believe as we do not because we have seen, but because we have been told. It's quite necessary but in my view it's equally necessary to be aware of when you're just trusting someone, versus when you have seen for yourself. This is the value of flat earth: To teach us that.

It made me wonder, how would god's track record rate?

Terrible if he's a human. But he's not. He's God. We allow parents, and governments, to do things which children, and regular people, are not. We say, if X does that, he is evil, but if Y does that, then he is good.

This isn't something I'm making a negative commentary about. It's 100% necessary and extends to justice, where the punishing of X by Y is justified because X engaged in some crime, but the punishing of Y by X would not be justified and would be a further crime.

This is necessary, it's just the way it is, and having some beings higher on the totem pole than others and entitled to do more harm and given a pass for it is just an inextricable part of humanity. If we reject it, then we reject justice, and we reject self-defence.

God allows a guy to betray himself/son/self/etc and allows history to see this guy as a traitor when, in all actuality, SOME guy had to do this in order to complete god's 'plan'
Then this god/man/god/man dies and raises from the dead
God allows mankind's history to be told in 'the bible', even though there are Es and Os which cause confusion for the remainder of humanity

All of these are related. It's about what the doer sees. I put myself in the place of Judas and wonder that I might have done the same. I made a thread about this. I legitimately do not know how I am supposed to judge whether someone flipping tables is a morally correct revolutionary who should be lauded or an inciter who needs to go to jail. The only thing I might have done differently is not follow someone if I had doubts, but I might have also followed him because I had doubts, since I want more than anything to be on the right side of history. This means that myself and Judas being much alike, I can learn from the tale, and next time I see someone doing something apparently wrong, consider that he might be a morally correct revolutionary and let him be, taking his side and protecting him from the law rather than the opposite. This is the exact judgment I made about some of the more extreme acts of Antifa and BLM: That they do some things that upset me, but I am no judge, and they might be morally correct revolutionaries, so I had better side with them, and against the law, before it's the year 4042 and there's a debate forum talking about how Purple Knight was a horrible person for turning in Jesus 2.0 for simply smashing a window.

But I digress. It's about what the doer sees. Someone killing an infant in his crib is still horrible and insane even if he happens to hit the morality jackpot and that baby was the next Adolf Hitler. The doer didn't see that, and he shouldn't be rewarded for killing a baby just because he happened to do good. If Judas thought he was doing wrong then he shouldn't have done it, even though it was actually right and necessary. God could have charged a knowing individual with this, but I doubt it would have been easy to get them to do it, and if Judas knew why it was right then he was absolved. But if he was just greedy and thought he was doing wrong then he was, regardless of whether he was mistaken or not.

How would YOU judge god's work?
How should god's work be judged?

Fairly. That's the only thing I can come up with, and if it's fair to just give higher beings a pass on actions that would be evil for mortals, it just means that higher beings can't help mortals be good.

[brunumb]

If there is no God, no Creator, if the one material life is all there is for anyone, then it only makes sense to maximize one's pleasure for the time one has.

It strikes me that maximising one's pleasure applies to just about everyone on the planet, theist or atheist, gods or no gods. What really counts is if we achieve that while showing care, understanding and empathy for our fellow human beings.

[JoeyKnothead]

...snipped the mean mouthing...
You say theists don't debate with honor,

A careful reading'll show I specifically mentioned "some".

but then you say you will not consider the possibility of God (just like you won't consider the possibility of the Easter bunny).

I note you use "if God exists", and see little reason to play along.

You claim that we provide no evidence, but you won't even allow the debate to get to the point of evidence.

Nowhere've I said you can't provide evidence for your claims. In fact, I encourage you to do just that.

You just start in with your mocking, and you act like that's a substitute for intellectual exploration.

What "inellectual exploration" are we to have if ya won't support your claims?

You think being a cynic is the same thing as knowing the truth, but it's not the same thing.

So you're a mind reader now, to tell us all what it is I'm thinking?

It's just willful ignorance. It's just the avoiding of knowing.

If it's ignorance, and avoiding of knowing, it's cause you willfully refuse to provide evidence for your previous assertions

And then you have the nerve to suggest that I have the burden of proof,

Site rules, that you ostensibly agreed to upon signing up clearly state the claimant totes the burden. Those rules are further reinforced / clarified at the top of each section of the site.

If you find such a condition too burdensome, maybe the TD&D or Holy Huddle sections'll be more willing to coddle your claims.

that I need you to believe in God. I don't. Actually, it's YOU that has the burden of proof.

Please link to and quote verbatim claims I've made you seek to challenge

I'm a theist.

The not wanting to support your claims done told that.

It makes sense for me to be in a forum talking about God.

Please note, this forum, specifically this part of it, is about debating various claims, tyically religious or science-centric. Again, TD&D or Holy Huddle might offer you some reprieve from the harsh demands of honorable and integritous debate.

I'm a Christian and love my fellow man enough to want to show him the door to salvation from death,

You just don't seem to wanna honor a code of ethics regarding making claims and supporting em.

so it makes sense that I am talking to an atheist.

See above. This section of the site expects folks to support their claims when challenged

What makes no sense at all is why you're even here.

I get my jollies watching assumedly "righteous" Christians try to explain why they should'nt be expected to support their claims in debate, among other reasons.

If you say there is no God, then why not just go live your life as hedonistically as you can, as distracted from your final fate as you can be, and with whatever made up illusory purpose you want give it? Why would you ever be here? ...Talking to me?

Cause a good bunch of y'all Christians vote in an effort to deny others their rights and freedoms.

The burden of explaining is. on. you.

Please link to and quote verbatim anything I've said that gets you discombobulated.

[Veridican]

Nowhere've I said you can't provide evidence for your claims. In fact, I encourage you to do just that.

Oh, I tried. The moderation team deleted it from the Philosophy board and never even said why. It broke no rules and was strictly a philosophical argument--that no atheist has ever refuted. But, it was deleted. Like I said, I showed up for the fight. Y'all didn't.

What "inellectual exploration" are we to have if ya won't support your claims?

Oh, I can completely give support. The forum won't allow it. ...so you're out of luck. And trust me, you really are out of luck because of that.

Site rules, that you ostensibly agreed to upon signing up clearly state the claimant totes the burden. Those rules are further reinforced / clarified at the top of each section of the site.

Rules? There's a million rules for this website. There is no possible way of following them. And like I said: I did--they deleted it.

I get my jollies watching assumedly "righteous" Christians try to explain why they should'nt be expected to support their claims in debate, among other reasons.

See, you're allowed to be insulting, but I get warned for it. And you talk about honor in debate. Joke!

Bottom line, if you want a debate on the existence of God, you're going to have to contact me off of the forum. They won't let me post it here. That's all I have to say on this topic from now on.

[brunumb]

Nowhere've I said you can't provide evidence for your claims. In fact, I encourage you to do just that.

Oh, I tried. The moderation team deleted it from the Philosophy board and never even said why. It broke no rules and was strictly a philosophical argument--that no atheist has ever refuted. But, it was deleted. Like I said, I showed up for the fight. Y'all didn't.

That seems rather extraordinary* as there are countless threads loaded with posts from people supplying what they consider yo be evidence for their claims. Why not have another go here and see.

*Unless you were trying to sell a product or something like that.