How is a desireless God a God at all?

It has nothing to do with how desirous god is.

While I won't speak for anyone else, I wasn't try to argue that theists' morals are necessarily better than an atheist's.



For the most part, rules and regulations are determined by the will of a religion's god(s) and/or spirit(s).



Just wanted to touch on this: you need to take into account that these small groups within atheists that share common morals are not organized into subgroups. That's what, in my opinion, makes them different (as a subgroup of a atheists) from Christianity, Islam, etc. (as subgroups of theists).

But if a God has no desire, he wouldn't do anything.

If God had no passion, he wouldn't have had christ.


Mary sure is lucky. Banging god must have been AWESOME.

Dude, virgin birth. Childbirth, child raising, and no banging at all. Total suck.

See, I was waiting for someone to post something like;

"You might say it was heavenly."

But you freaking ruined it.



But really, I think God had to atleast godly bang her. Whos to say a being so perfect can't bang a chick and not spear her holster?

I just giggle at "And on the third day, he rose."

BOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOING!!!!!

Athiests have the ability to take whatever philosophy they please. Which is why we're versatile like sharks.

how are sharks versatile?

You don't need religion to be a theist. You don't need to care about god to be a theist. You don't have to care about or profess to know the will of god to be a theist. You don't need to be spiritual to be a theist. All it means to be a theist is that you believe god exists.

I don't know what you have to gain from trying to claim that theists must follow some higher code, but it needs to stop.

It seems this has diverged from the main topic. Yeah, Atheists have no central moral code by definition. There is no "do this or I smite you" part of Atheism. I'm an atheist and I'm proud I don't need to be feared into morals but do it in order to uphold society. But again, no, they have no central moral code as a group. Individually, maybe, but atheism includes no morals. Only inference of intelligence :p

The word god should be removed from the pledge of allegiance just because it doesn't belong there. It was added recently, we have a secular government, and there is really no use for it.

The arguments "well, you don't have to say it" are bunk. That isn't defending why it is there or the merit of it being there; it's trying to say "oh well, it's there, tough, la la la". That doesn't quite function as an argument. Why *should* it be there is the only submissible argument. I can tell you why it shouldn't be there:

1.) Our government is secular
2.) Not everyone is a monotheist
3.) It serves no purpose; i.e. every word in the allegiance has a meaning, what does 'under god' add to it?

However, Rob's position is the best at this point, I have to agree with him on all fronts. God is one serious pimp. Well, it he/it/she existed.

Edit: DAMN IT... just read Jedi Legend's post... argument... old... damn. Heh, so since no one could rebut his or wuss's arguments, victory goes to the blue team. Yeah, debate over...

I challenge you to name one way they aren't.

They can't live on land?

They can't fly?

They would have got feathers if God wanted them to fly, now wouldn't they

Because belief in a desireless God isn't belief in God at all.

A desireless God would never actually do anything. He wouldn't create Universe, he wouldn't create life, he wouldn't offer miracles or interefere with anything ever. There would actually be no reason whatsoever to believe that he exists. A god may well indeed be a perfect being, but it has to be a perfect being that does something. Even the god of deists creates the Universe (and does nothing else afterwards).


(Secondary argument! It could be that God controls his own existence, and if God has no desire, he has no desire to exist - because he is all-powerful, he can will himself out of existence.)

sharks can't swim backwards.

and they can't stay still.

and you stop them from attacking with a stout punch on the nose.

What next are people going to start complaing that on the dollar it says in god we trust? are we going to have to redo all the money????

how can you trust a god that thinks talking snakes are a good idea?

..Dude, they 'redo' money all the time. It doesn't last forever.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Stuff[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with all your arguments. God shouldn't be in the pledge. I don't care if it's in a city's name, or on the dollar, but it shouldn't be in the pledge. You can't make people pledge allegiance to a god they don't even believe in. That simple.

Skip that part when you pledge. It's the simplest thing to do.

No way:

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]The arguments "well, you don't have to say it" are bunk. That isn't defending why it is there or the merit of it being there; it's trying to say "oh well, it's there, tough, la la la". That doesn't quite function as an argument. Why *should* it be there is the only submissible argument. I can tell you why it shouldn't be there:

1.) Our government is secular
2.) Not everyone is a monotheist
3.) It serves no purpose; i.e. every word in the allegiance has a meaning, what does 'under god' add to it?[/QUOTE]

There. I agree with this guy.

I will stop claiming that theists must follow some higher code when you start reading what I have to say:

[quote=MEEEE I SAID THIS SEE? IT WAS ME. I SAID THIS, JUST AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. LOOK WHAT I SAID:]While I won't speak for anyone else, I wasn't try to argue that theists' morals are necessarily better than an atheist's.[/quote]

That doesn't have anything to do with claiming that theists must follow a moral code. But thanks for spamming the forums full of uselss crap.

Considering we've already established that belief in a God must be a belief in a God with desires, then the desires of that God must be ultimate desire (whatever they may be), and moral codes are based on those ultimate desires.

Mort, I've been holding off on saying this for a while now, but you are seriously ****ed in the head.

More useless spam coming your way:

Why's he ****ed up in the head?



What religion doesn't call its followers to some sort of ethic?

You DON'T NEED RELIGION TO BE A THEIST. HELLO. THEISM DOES NOT IMPLY ANY MORALS, JUST AS ATHEISM DOESN'T IMPLY ANY MORALS. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEISTS. THEISTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY RELIGIOUS. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE NOT NECESSARILY THEISTS.

Hmm. Okay. Good point.

But you sure seem to get upset about these things.

Yes well I have many unresolved issues when it comes to religion and related issues. If you couldn't tell.

Meh. I was simply associating theists with religion, and, while that is the case for most, you are right - theism does not necessarily imply religion.

I've always been talking about theism, not religion.

Theism isn't just saying "i believe in god lalalala", it is actually believing it and all that it entails.

Theism and atheism are not 'equal' positions. They are different positions and have different implications. Inferring these implications is precisely what theology is all about.
One of the implications of belief in a higher power is the acceptance of the will of this higher power (whatever it may be) and the desire to replicate this will as best you can; a 'moral code'. Even if you go out of your way to displease this higher power, you are still basing your decisions on his will (just doing the opposite).


Rejection of the existence of this higher power doesn't have this implication.

Please refer to my previous comment. I'm through debating with you. all you do is take a simple idea and make it more complicated than anyone thought possible.

No Mort, theism is simply this: the belief that god exists. There are no implications attached. There are no 'buts', 'ands' or 'ifs' about it. If you believe god exists, you are a theist. Yes, I know you have a very difficult time with simple concepts, but it really is that simple.

Why do you even bother posting on a debate you're quite clearly too stupid to follow?

You haven't actually responded to.. anything..

"I believe God exists" has implications (and the implications have implications).. and yet you.. flat out refuse the implications, instead adopting a completely superficial view of theism.

.... exactly. There is nothing preventing a person from believing god exists but not knowing, caring about, or accepting his will. That's the difference between theism and religion.

Theism IS superficial. Theism ONLY dictates that a person believes god exists, just as atheism ONLY dictates that a person believes god doesn't exist.