Could God be convicted of violating a Good Samaritan law?

[Kilgore Trout]

Could God be convicted of violating a Good Samaritan law?

No, because whatever god does, or doesn't, do is the most perfectly moral thing that could be done.

If a million people get slaughtered in a genocide, god had some higher moral purpose for letting this happen. Obviously, these families were better served by being murdered then if god saved them. If millions of children starve and suffer from horrible diseases, this is merely an expression of god's love for them - they are obviously better off slowly dying horrible deaths, whether they understand that or not.

God is the ultimate, and perfect, good samaritan - so, every instance of suffering in the world is an expression of this perfect morality.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Could God be convicted of violating a Good Samaritan law?

No, because whatever god does, or doesn't, do is the most perfectly moral thing that could be done.

If a million people get slaughtered in a genocide, god had some higher moral purpose for letting this happen. Obviously, these families were better served by being murdered then if god saved them. If millions of children starve and suffer from horrible diseases, this is merely an expression of god's love for them - they are obviously better off slowly dying horrible deaths, whether they understand that or not.

God is the ultimate, and perfect, good samaritan - so, every instance of suffering in the world is an expression of this perfect morality.

Oh....oh, well never mind then.

 

[footprints]

Really? What atheist perspectives have you encountered? Whichever ones they are, you should know that these perspectives have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is simply non-belief in God, and has no specific perspective.

Really? Really. The view from the inside looking out is always different to the view when looking from the outside in. The only time you know what both views are is when you have lived on the inside and the outside. If you only ever look inside out, or outside in through the same window, you will only ever get the same view. Agnosticism, is just looking at the same thing, through different windows from both inside out and outside in.

The atheists perspectives I have encountered are from the extremist and unreasoned positions of people like Richard Dawkins, to the reasoned and balanced positions of the extremely mild atheist like Graham Brown, the people who really do not have a belief in a deity and therefore cannot say one way or the other whether a deity does or doesn't exist. Who is Graham Brown, he is a nobody who is a somebody, a lovely person who wishes no ill will on anybody, he is not out be be known, but many people know him. I never let my perspective of opinion get too unbalanced by just listening the extremist atheist views (looking in or out the same window), and keep a sense of balance by continually talking to atheists of reasoned views (looking in and out of different windows).

Yes I know what Atheism is supposed to be, many atheists tell me this, just before they start giving me their beliefs pertaining to deities and Holy Books.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Really? Really. The view from the inside looking out is always different to the view when looking from the outside in. The only time you know what both views are is when you have lived on the inside and the outside.

For the record, I think this is BS. I don't have to have been a Buddhist to have valid opinions on reincarnation, nor do I have to have once been an automotive engineer to hate my Chevy Nova. This is a thinly veiled "Argument from Authority" which is one of the classic fallacies. Having said that, I have been a Catholic, Southern Baptist, Atheist and Agnostic, as if it mattered one whit as to whether I know what "atheism" means.

Yes I know what Atheism is supposed to be

Words are not "supposed" to mean something. They mean something, period. Atheist do no believe in God. That's it.

Many atheists tell me this, just before they start giving me their beliefs pertaining to deities and Holy Books.

You should really be careful here. This is where bigotry starts. "Those [fill in the minority group] are always [fill in your generalizations]. Atheism is simple. It is people who don't assert a belief in God. Generalizations after that fact can be dangerous.

 

[footprints]

For the record, I think this is BS. I don't have to have been a Buddhist to have valid opinions on reincarnation, nor do I have to have once been an automotive engineer to hate my Chevy Nova. This is a thinly veiled "Argument from Authority" which is one of the classic fallacies. Having said that, I have been a Catholic, Southern Baptist, Atheist and Agnostic, as if it mattered one whit as to whether I know what "atheism" means.

It doesn't surprise me that you believe this is BS, this is part and parcel of your belief pattern.

You don not need to have been a Buddhist et al to have an opinon. Opinion isn't in any way a fact or even a truism and should not be construed as evidence.

Words are not "supposed" to mean something. They mean something, period. Atheist do no believe in God. That's it.

Actions speak louder than words. You had the definition of Atheism right the first time, Atheists do not have a belief in God. I don't believe there is term developed yet for people who do not believe in God. I would suggest extremist irrationalist.

You should really be careful here. This is where bigotry starts. "Those [fill in the minority group] are always [fill in your generalizations]. Atheism is simple. It is people who don't assert a belief in God. Generalizations after that fact can be dangerous.

Bigotry starts in the brain by people believing their belief patterns (opinions) are better than another persons belief or opinion and stand as God to prove their might.

Atheism is as wide in its belief patterns as theism is. There are extremist atheists and their are mild atheists and every pattern of belief in-between these two extremes to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't believe there is term developed yet for people who do not believe in God.

Actually, you're in luck. We do - they're called "atheists."

 

[footprints]

Actually, you're in luck. We do - they're called "atheists."

Actually atotalstranger, you are out of luck. An atheist doesn't have a belief in God. This in no way implies or suggests they flat out deny the existance of God, irrespective of how low they rate the probability. They just don't have any evidence which suggests to them a God exists, without evidence they reason they cannot have a belief.

A person who doesn't believe (as opposed to not having faith of belief) a deity exists, who would deny a God to the point of instant denial, there is no cliche' of sterotype for. This is the person who would say, God doesn't exist, God is a fairytale et al. Because they come close to the Atheist belief, many align themselves with atheism. They are not really atheists though, they are atheists who have gone the next step and into instant denial or beyond the point of reason.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't believe there is term developed yet for people who do not believe in God.

Actually, you're in luck. We do - they're called "atheists."

Actually atotalstranger, you are out of luck. An atheist doesn't have a belief in God. This in no way implies or suggests they flat out deny the existance of God, irrespective of how low they rate the probability. They just don't have any evidence which suggests to them a God exists, without evidence they reason they cannot have a belief.

No YOU'RE out of luck!

You misspoke (mistyped?) in your initial claim : "I don't believe there is term developed yet for people who do not believe in God." What I am sure you meant to say is "I don't believe there is a term developed yet for people who DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD." Stranger is right in his response. There IS a term for people who "do not believe in God." We are called atheists.

And for the umpteenth time, not just to you, but to others as well, THAT IS ALL ATHEISM IS!!!!!!! Atheists do not believe in God. This IN NO WAY determines their other views about the world.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually atotalstranger, you are out of luck. An atheist doesn't have a belief in God. This in no way implies or suggests they flat out deny the existance of God, irrespective of how low they rate the probability. They just don't have any evidence which suggests to them a God exists, without evidence they reason they cannot have a belief.

A person who doesn't believe (as opposed to not having faith of belief) a deity exists, who would deny a God to the point of instant denial, there is no cliche' of sterotype for. This is the person who would say, God doesn't exist, God is a fairytale et al. Because they come close to the Atheist belief, many align themselves with atheism. They are not really atheists though, they are atheists who have gone the next step and into instant denial or beyond the point of reason.

Believing something doesn't exist, and not believing something exists aren't the same thing. Don't worry - it's a logical distinction lost on many. But, a significant logical distinction nonetheless.

 

[footprints]

No YOU'RE out of luck!

You misspoke (mistyped?) in your initial claim : "I don't believe there is term developed yet for people who do not believe in God." What I am sure you meant to say is "I don't believe there is a term developed yet for people who DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD." Stranger is right in his response. There IS a term for people who "do not believe in God." We are called atheists.

And for the umpteenth time, not just to you, but to others as well, THAT IS ALL ATHEISM IS!!!!!!! Atheists do not believe in God. This IN NO WAY determines their other views about the world.

I am sorry beaudreaux, I think if you look in a dictionary there is a difference between believe and belief.

A person who doesn't believe in God (deny the existence of God), are beyond the point of reason, Atheists are still based in reason. Two seperate and different belief patterns.

 

[footprints]

Believing something doesn't exist, and not believing something exists aren't the same thing. Don't worry - it's a logical distinction lost on many. But, a significant logical distinction nonetheless.

Personally I think you are getting confused between the words believe and belief. Don't worry - it's a logical distinction lost on many. But, a significant logical distinction nonetheless.

 

[ruhnafsoul]

hmm.. we dont speak / write about GOD, if we do not believe HIM in the first place

 

[sonofskeptish]

Good Samaritan law!!!!!!!!!!

Pat Robertson's God could be tried and convicted as the most evil, sadistic mass-murdering psychopath ever... would make Hitler look like a "saint" (no pun intended)... just ask a Haitian.

 

[footprints]

Believing something doesn't exist, and not believing something exists aren't the same thing. Don't worry - it's a logical distinction lost on many. But, a significant logical distinction nonetheless.

Hey just look at it this way atotalstranger and Beaudreaux (if you read other posts), you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren that you were a part of naming a species, the Extremist Irrationalist. As theism has the creationist, atheism now has the Extremist Irrationalist.

Well done to both of you. I couldn't have done it without your help.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally I think you are getting confused between the words believe and belief. Don't worry - it's a logical distinction lost on many. But, a significant logical distinction nonetheless.

Actually, that would be a semantic distinction, not a logical one. And, in fact, I do know the difference. One is a verb, and one is a noun.

I realize your entire "argument" relies on you creating your own definition of words, but you can't expect the rest of us sane, rational people to go along with your delusion. Well, I guess you can expect it, but it's not going to happen.

Now, do you actually have a rational argument somewhere, or are you going to continue to rant like deranged lunatic?

 

[Beaudreaux]

A person who doesn't believe in God (deny the existence of God)

Since when did NOT doing something become DOING something? A person who doesn't believe in God does NOT believe in God. That's it. There's a difference, as Stranger pointed out earlier, between DENYING the existence of something (an affirmation) and NOT believing in something (a non action)

 

[footprints]

Actually, that would be a semantic distinction, not a logical one. And, in fact, I do know the difference. One is a verb, and one is a noun.

I realize your entire "argument" relies on you creating your own definition of words, but you can't expect the rest of us sane, rational people to go along with your delusion. Well, I guess you can expect it, but it's not going to happen.

Now, do you actually have a rational argument somewhere, or are you going to continue to rant like deranged lunatic?

LOL now that is deranged.

Granted I will give both you and Beaudreaux, that the use of believe in the original structure may have been ambiguous. However this was completely taken away in post number 27, when it was clearly shown believe was used in the context of instant denial. I know Beaudreaux looked at this post because a quote was taken from it in post number 28.

So tell me atotalstranger, are you an Extremist Irrationalist?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Now, do you actually have a rational argument somewhere, or are you going to continue to rant like deranged lunatic?

LOL now that is deranged.

Granted I will give both you and Beaudreaux, that the use of believe in the original structure may have been ambiguous. However this was completely taken away in post number 27, when it was clearly shown believe was used in the context of instant denial. I know Beaudreaux looked at this post because a quote was taken from it in post number 28.

Obviously, it was a rhetorical question.

 

[footprints]

Since when did NOT doing something become DOING something? A person who doesn't believe in God does NOT believe in God. That's it. There's a difference, as Stranger pointed out earlier, between DENYING the existence of something (an affirmation) and NOT believing in something (a non action)

Yeah stranger is a little bit deluded on this point, not sure about you yet, you may not have read the entire message in post number 27, only picking out the first couple of lines. Of course after post 27, there is absolutely no reason why you and atotalstranger would still be pressing your issue of instant denial.

You have just got to be an Extremist Irrationalist.

 

[footprints]

Obviously, it was a rhetorical question.

Personally I would have said a stupid question for after post 27 it really did make you look a bit silly, not to mention showing a very limited command of the English Language.

There are a lot of Extremist Irrationalist around, don't you think?