Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The state still has limits. For instance, the state cannot summarily execute you right there at the scene of the crime. It cannot line up the first born of everyone in town and murder them in order to coerse the mayor to do something. The state cannot legally engage in genocide. The state cannot demand that a father kill his own kids. The state cannot nuke its own cities. In fact, the state cannot legally commit most of the atrocities God has committed. Fortunately, we have laws against summary executions, cruel and unusual punishments (like stoning), persecution and ethnic cleansing and genocide, human sacrifice, and many others.
I said that above, actually. Yes--the state has limits. Even the state must adhere to the limits that God has imposed.
Quote:
What God did was not justice. It was rampant barbarism.
How do you know that? You have yet to answer that question. How do you know that what he did was immoral? How do you know that those people didn't deserve it?
Quote:
States that commit genocide, butcher children, wage wars of aggression, and do even half of the disgusting things God did in the OT, that state would be considered "rogue," an exile from the international community. It would have sanctions placed on it, airstrikes sortied against it, missile strikes launched against it, and perhaps even invaded if the atrocities are severe enough.
Again--I've said this time and time again. There is a difference between a state doing it and God doing it. Do you not realize that? Do you not read my comments? Have you completely ignored everything I've said?
Quote:
Why should I put up with behavior like that from God when it runs contrary to everything I believe about morality, goodness, justice, and compassion?
What is it that you actually KNOW about morality? Goodness? Justice? Compassion? How do you know God was not acting in a moral, good, just and compassionate way? How do you know that you have the full story and that you are right and God is wrong?
Quote:
Sure, I understand it. I just don't agree with it. I think it's a lot of male bovine excrement.
And that is the crux of the argument. You simply don't like it.
Quote:
Without limitations, without adherence to a moral code, God is nothing but a brute and a bully. If you really believe that God can do what he wants because he's God and that "might makes right," then how do you know that the things God has promised you aren't lies?
Why do you think God is not adhering to a much much higher moral code than you could ever hope to live by? Instead of sitting here and acting holier than thou...perhaps you ought to attempt to understand the situation.
How do you know that?
How do you know that what he did was immoral?
How do you know that those people didn't deserve it?
Do you not realize that?
Do you not read my comments?
Have you completely ignored everything I've said?
What is it that you actually KNOW about morality?
Goodness?
Justice?
Compassion?
How do you know God was not acting in a moral, good, just and compassionate way?
How do you know that you have the full story and that you are right and God is wrong?
Why do you think God is not adhering to a much much higher moral code than you could ever hope to live by?
The fact remains that you cannot answer questions with questions, you cannot expect someone to answer your questions when you've not answered their questions OR addressed their points, and the burden of proof is on you because it is you making the extraordinary claims.
You've made a claim that morality is absolute, immutable, and god-bestowed, and totally objective. That claim has been addressed very thoroughly. You have ignored that, because you actually have nothing with which to respond. So you just conceal your repetition of the same unsubstantiated assertions in the form of hectoring questions.
The truth is that an objective god given morality can only be claimed as axiomatic and you cannot discuss it other than in terms of itself. Because god is not a falsifiable assertion, neither is anything that proceeds from god. On the other hand societal morality can be discussed and substantiated as an emergent property of societal interactions. It is well known and well studied.
Prove god, then prove his morality. Otherwise, disprove the existence of society or of explicitly and implicitly negotiated rules of engagement within society. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss other than your personal subjective opinions and assertions about the nature, source and workings of (im)morality.
The fact remains that you cannot answer questions with questions, you cannot expect someone to answer your questions when you've not answered their questions OR addressed their points, and the burden of proof is on you because it is you making the extraordinary claims.
You've made a claim that morality is absolute, immutable, and god-bestowed, and totally objective. That claim has been addressed very thoroughly. You have ignored that, because you actually have nothing with which to respond. So you just conceal your repetition of the same unsubstantiated assertions in the form of hectoring questions.
The truth is that an objective god given morality can only be claimed as axiomatic and you cannot discuss it other than in terms of itself. Because god is not a falsifiable assertion, neither is anything that proceeds from god. On the other hand societal morality can be discussed and substantiated as an emergent property of societal interactions. It is well known and well studied.
Prove god, then prove his morality. Otherwise, disprove the existence of society or of explicitly and implicitly negotiated rules of engagement within society. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss other than your personal subjective opinions and assertions about the nature, source and workings of (im)morality.
The fact remains that you cannot answer questions with questions, you cannot expect someone to answer your questions when you've not answered their questions OR addressed their points, and the burden of proof is on you because it is you making the extraordinary claims.
If you're going to make unsubstantiated claims, then the questions need to be asked. This entire thread is based on the premise that the atheist can judge morality -- including the morality of the Creator. But the fact is, it has not been shown that the atheist is able to do this.
Quote:
You've made a claim that morality is absolute, immutable, and god-bestowed, and totally objective. That claim has been addressed very thoroughly. You have ignored that, because you actually have nothing with which to respond. So you just conceal your repetition of the same unsubstantiated assertions in the form of hectoring questions.
I've not seen anyone explain how their system of morality can be applied to anyone else. Sorry--it just hasn't been done. The best your side has is that you just don't like it. Yay. Bully for you.
Quote:
The truth is that an objective god given morality can only be claimed as axiomatic and you cannot discuss it other than in terms of itself. Because god is not a falsifiable assertion, neither is anything that proceeds from god. On the other hand societal morality can be discussed and substantiated as an emergent property of societal interactions. It is well known and well studied.
Prove god, then prove his morality. Otherwise, disprove the existence of society or of explicitly and implicitly negotiated rules of engagement within society. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss other than your personal subjective opinions and assertions about the nature, source and workings of (im)morality.
The OP was working under the assumption that God exists. It's not up to me to prove his existence.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
The state still has limits. For instance, the state cannot summarily execute you right there at the scene of the crime. It cannot line up the first born of everyone in town and murder them in order to coerse the mayor to do something. The state cannot legally engage in genocide. The state cannot demand that a father kill his own kids. The state cannot nuke its own cities. In fact, the state cannot legally commit most of the atrocities God has committed. Fortunately, we have laws against summary executions, cruel and unusual punishments (like stoning), persecution and ethnic cleansing and genocide, human sacrifice, and many others.
What God did was not justice. It was rampant barbarism. States that commit genocide, butcher children, wage wars of aggression, and do even half of the disgusting things God did in the OT, that state would be considered "rogue," an exile from the international community. It would have sanctions placed on it, airstrikes sortied against it, missile strikes launched against it, and perhaps even invaded if the atrocities are severe enough.
Why should I put up with behavior like that from God when it runs contrary to everything I believe about morality, goodness, justice, and compassion?
Sure, I understand it. I just don't agree with it. I think it's a lot of male bovine excrement. Without limitations, without adherence to a moral code, God is nothing but a brute and a bully. If you really believe that God can do what he wants because he's God and that "might makes right," then how do you know that the things God has promised you aren't lies?
Vizio does not understand the evolution (there is THAT word) of El, a Mesopotamian god, to Elohim, to the Caaninte god Yahweh. Elohim was not a bad one, but that Yahweh, he made Thor look like a babe. I mean never mind the thunder and lightning, heck, lets make it rain so hard the earth gets flooded. Look how much fun it is to kill all those innocent babies and children. And puppies and kittens. Yee haw... I'm Yahweh. No wonder some said NoWay.
So now Yahweh of the OT becomes the capitalized god of the NT. Throw in a mythical virgin birth, sacrificial killing, a rebirth, mix in a couple of hundred zombies that walk around, and presto changeo you have the believe system Vizio (and a billion or so of his compatriots) see as the Ultmate Authority, although they sure are confused as to what that UA actually wants. Otherwise you would not have the plethora of sects within it.
I said that above, actually. Yes--the state has limits. Even the state must adhere to the limits that God has imposed.
No.
The state has limits that it imposed upon itself. Where, for instance, does it say in the Bible that we are to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures? Where in the Bible does it talk about the right to face our accusors, to have a trial by our peers? Where does it say that we have the right to refuse soldiers being quartered in our private homes?
God didn't impose anything - and in fact, rights like freedom of religion are anathema to God. Do you seriously think that God imposed a freedom of religion rule upon the state so that the state cannot persecute non-Christian religions? Think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How do you know that? You have yet to answer that question. How do you know that what he did was immoral?
Because were I to ever believe in God, I would hold God to the HIGHEST standards, not the lowest. That's one major thing I just don't get about people like yourself. You actually hold supposedly sinful, inherently evil, very flawed human beings to a higher standard than a Supreme and Perfect Being.
That doesn't may any logical sense whatsoever.
If your omnipotent God - a being that can do ANYTHING - cannot think of a better way to solve certain problems than immediately resorting to mass slaughter and wanton destruction, then by EVERY standard of goodness, decency, and compassion, your God is the epitome of evil.
Even Hitler only wanted to commit genocide against the Jews. God wanted to - and did- kill EVERYONE. Yet despite this, you'll consider Hitler to be evil and God to be good. LOL!
It makes absolutely NO sense. AT ALL. PERIOD.
And no, I'm not going to waste my time justifying my moral system to you because you've already patently rejected empathy and evolution without ever explaining why those reasons are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How do you know that those people didn't deserve it?
LOL! Right ... and how do you know that they did? Besides, God has an absolutely abysmal record when it comes to justice and fairness. Unless, of course, you think that 42 kids really did deserve to be torn apart by bears for calling Elisha "old baldhead." Wow, what a scathing insult *gasp* I'm sure that traumatized the poor man forever. Thus God's prophet representing a being of pure goodness, fairness, and morality, cursed a bunch of children and God answered by having the kids murdered by bears.
And you call that justice? If there was a God, I'd be thanking him that you're not anywhere near a judge's bench because your definition of justice would be in league with Stalin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Again--I've said this time and time again. There is a difference between a state doing it and God doing it. Do you not realize that? Do you not read my comments? Have you completely ignored everything I've said?
The ONLY difference between a person, a state, and God committing an atrocity is that both a person and a state are fallible. They can make mistakes based on a wide range of factors. They can also be prone to things like confirmation bias, bigotry, prejudice, hatred, blind patriotism, and many other human mental conditions that can cause a person or a state to behave irrationally.
God, however, is supposed to be infallible, perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful. So when God goes postal against humanity and starts slaughtering them wholesale - kids, babies, even the damn animals - what is God's excuse? Oh right ... he doesn't have one. No, there can be NO explanation other than God chose to commit those atrocities not because he had no other choice. No, he commited those atrocities because he WANTED to ... and that is as sick as they come.
If you can't see that, then oh well ... it's just not my problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
What is it that you actually KNOW about morality? Goodness? Justice? Compassion? How do you know God was not acting in a moral, good, just and compassionate way? How do you know that you have the full story and that you are right and God is wrong?
Like I said above - God is omnipotent. He could have chosen a virtually infinite number of different options available to him. And yet, out of them all, he chose to not just kill ... but to butcher humans like pigs on a meathook. I know God is wrong because he could have solved the problem in a much more humane way. Instead, he had to protect Israel at all costs ... which is just one more reason why I know it's all BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
And that is the crux of the argument. You simply don't like it.
So what? Sue me for not liking any being that commits genocide, ethnic cleansing, summary executions, and stuff like that. It offends my moral sympathies and they should you too. Apparently you have sacrificed your humanity in exchange for your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why do you think God is not adhering to a much much higher moral code than you could ever hope to live by?
Because God doesn't exist. Instead, the God of the Bible acts precisely the way we'd expect a human to behave if that human had unlimited power and could use it without fear of the consequences. Since there wasn't an actual God, the simpletons who wrote the Bible could only imagine what a human would do, and viola ... a God is born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Instead of sitting here and acting holier than thou...perhaps you ought to attempt to understand the situation.
LOL! I'm acting "holier-than-thou" because I don't approve of genocide, baby-killing, etc. etc. Wow, was I ever way out of line for condemning those kinds of atrocities.
The OP was working under the assumption that God exists. It's not up to me to prove his existence.
No, quite the opposite. The OP is a fellow unbeliever and while he had a heading "Without belief in God there can be no morality", what appears under that heading REBUTS that notion. I suggest you reread the post.
But in any event, my statement that it's up to you to prove god's existence isn't based on the what the OP did or didn't say. It is based on standard rules of evidence and burden of proof. IF you want an empiricist to accept the existence of a god that you believe in, then it IS up to you to prove the existence of your god, if you want that person to give your god's claims any consideration at all. This should be something of concern to you since you believe that all most come to know your god, or perish. If so, then a significant percentage of people will perish if you don't present substantiation. That should be easy enough to do if your god is real, really interacts with people, and if the bible is his inerrant word and actually represents reality correctly.
Once you can easily substantiate your god then you can easily substantiate his claims, including the claim to have invented and promulgated some One True Absolute Immutable Totally Objective Morality.
No, quite the opposite. The OP is a fellow unbeliever and while he had a heading "Without belief in God there can be no morality", what appears under that heading REBUTS that notion. I suggest you reread the post.
But in any event, my statement that it's up to you to prove god's existence isn't based on the what the OP did or didn't say. It is based on standard rules of evidence and burden of proof. IF you want an empiricist to accept the existence of a god that you believe in, then it IS up to you to prove the existence of your god, if you want that person to give your god's claims any consideration at all. This should be something of concern to you since you believe that all most come to know your god, or perish. If so, then a significant percentage of people will perish if you don't present substantiation. That should be easy enough to do if your god is real, really interacts with people, and if the bible is his inerrant word and actually represents reality correctly.
Once you can easily substantiate your god then you can easily substantiate his claims, including the claim to have invented and promulgated some One True Absolute Immutable Totally Objective Morality.
If you'd like to start a thread on me proving the existence of God, go for it. I'm not going to be a part of derailing this one further. My statements regarding the OP's (or anyone else's) inability to declare God to be immoral do not hinge upon my proving he exist. My point is that the atheist has no standard by which to judge morality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
