Knightfox

I'm not saying he'd be beating Trump, but I think he wouldn't have doubts about qualifying for the primary debates.

Yeah, it's truly disappointing. By the numbers Pence should be an excellent candidate for the right, he's been married (first marriage) to the same person since 1985, he's so religious he has documented life events that he's made decisions based on faith, he's a seasoned politician (Congressman, Governor, and Vice President), and while his politics are terrible I don't think he himself is a bad person.

For that last part, it's a pretty low bar. It's the sort of thought, "If he had the opportunity to kill someone without being caught, and it made him money, I don't think he'd do it." This is the same idea for many of our past presidents and candidates. If my (fictional) teenage daughter passed out for some reason and I had to run to get help, I wouldn't have any concerns leaving Mike Pence (Obama, Biden, George Bush, or Romney) with her for a while so I could get help. Guy might cheat on his taxes or tell a white lie or justified lie, but he seems like a passably nice guy (in the I'll cancel your right to an abortion, but if I get you pregnant I'll own up and take responsibility for you and the child kind of way).

I might be reading more into his character than I should, but add that to mine and your past statement and I totally agree he would be a more popular candidate.

I think Pence would actually do better if he went full Chris Christie and attacked Trump. Pence stopped a coup attempt by certifying the vote. If the guy would stand up, denounce Trump, and paint himself a hero then he's probably doing a lot better than he is currently. Instead he's sitting on the fence like a massive turd.

Dude, you're literally inventing shit. I never said that,

"that god can and will always be good and just simply because he may exist outside of any human measurement is absolute bullshit for all the reasons I listed above and more. The belief of god and the claim the god wills or controls every action and event can be tested."

I'm making the statement that if you think that god doesn't exist because god doesn't meet your definition of good or moral, you're missing the mark. If god exists they exists outside of whether you believe in them. If god exists and their power is what is attributed to them then your opinions, however morally well founded they may be, are completely worthless.

The idea that you can test god's will or that god controls our every action cannot be tested unless you assume that god is a benevolent being. If god doesn't care that you kill your neighbor as long as it doesn't effect their long term plan then killing your neighbor doesn't disprove there is a god.

If god turns out to be a 7th dimensional being playing around with a 3rd/4th dimensional ant farm, that can just destroy us in a snap then all your moral high ground is for shit. If god is real our relationship to it is the same as ants in an ant farm to the guy outside the glass wall. If they fry us with the magnifying glass it makes no difference if they are good, evil, just, unjust, right, or wrong.

If you don't believe in god then cool. If you think god is unworthy of worship and belief then cool, but if so you're not an atheist because you believe in god. If you believe in god, but think they are unworthy of worship you opinion doesn't matter because you're an ant in an antfarm. The lesson here is either stop believing in god or fucking shut up about it.

IDK, I was going for the more extreme groups of religious groups. In some religious beliefs your belief in god has less effect on your post death outcome. Maybe in those you become a cat rather than burn in eternal pain for not believing in xyz god.

In high school I wrote a paper about the dichotomy of religious beliefs portrayed in Beowulf. My paper was about how the embracing of a new religion was personified by the acts of good being attributed to god, but the acts of evil were attributed to the non-biblical and villainous entities being portrayed by pagan representations. Essentially, as new cultures adopted Christianity they had a core issue in assigning blame to god for the ills in their lives so they were instead assigned it to something else that was still familiar (another cultural belief). This lead to a short period in which these peoples earnestly believed in both religious pantheons.

I'm not trying to make an argument in support of religion or god, I'm making an argument that moral (subjective or objective) rationales do not validate or invalidate the existence of god. If god exists, then they do so whether you believe in them or not. If god exists and the supposed outcomes of not following their rules is true, then whatever judgements about them you have is irrelevant.

Is god evil because it allows bad things to happen? Yeah and so what? You can think god sucks and is unfair or unjust, be the better person and refuse to worship or believe all you want. If you don't meet their magic requirements for the good ending then you get the bad ending no matter how much more moral you are.

I think that trying to have a philosophical debate about the morality or ethics of god(s) is asinine since if a god exists your objections to it have literally no value.

Hey, that's chill. I'm not trying to appeal to people to change their opinions on whether there is a god or not. I'm simply arguing that if what is said about god is true, then taking the moral high ground because you're the better being doesn't really mean anything.

"Hey what did you do that landed you up in eternal pain and suffering?"

"Oh, I'm just morally superior to the being that put me here."

The same goes for religious people blaming the bad things in their life on anything other than the same all powerful being.

Huh, interesting, I didn't realize Tolkien had started writing portions of the Silmarillion in 1914. I had to do some looking based on your response and learned something.

To be fair the children's story came first. In that regard Tolkien and Rowling had something in common, their first books were written for a much younger and simpler audience. It wasn't until they took off commercially that the more adult and deep lore was developed.

EDIT: I'm wrong