Christian morality: an atheist's point of view (quote, God, believe)

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

And your point has been soundly and repeatedly refuted.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

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.

Romans 13 states that the government is put in place by God. In order to be a just government, it must adhere to God's standards. While the Bible does not directly address many of the rights we take for granted in this country, it does address issues such as murdering its citizens.

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.

You think God should be moral. Great. Now prove that he violated any moral laws.

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.

Have you really looked at that episode in any depth? Do you realize they weren't 42 little kids. They were likely 42 teenagers threatening him with physical harm. In any event, what tells you that it was immoral? The fact that you don't like it?

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.

I absolutely see that God is infallible. I question your ability to judge justice. What makes you think that God erred, acted immorally, or wasn't giving justice?

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.

Why is your opinion the one that we should listen to?

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.

That's really what this is about. You not liking it.

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.

You're really all over the map, aren't you? Now you're changing your whine to God not existing.

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.

Do you approve of abortion?

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Romans 13 states that the government is put in place by God. In order to be a just government, it must adhere to God's standards. While the Bible does not directly address many of the rights we take for granted in this country, it does address issues such as murdering its citizens.

I don't give a rat's ass what Romans states. Perhaps you thought I would say, "Oh, well then, because the Bible says it, I guess I'm totally wrong!"

The last thing we need on this planet is a return to the Divine Right of Kings - because that's essentially what you're suggesting. If rulers believe they are ordained by God to have the power they wield, well, all I can say is get ready for tyranny and oppression.

Fortunately, we live under a government for the people, of the people, and by the people. No, not for God, of God, and by God. No. The PEOPLE. We are the ones who decide what our laws and rights are - and if we don't like what our politicians do, we boot them out of office and change what he did.

YOUR idea, straight out of the Bible, says that we cannot question our rulers and leaders. Whatever they do, whatever they ask of us, whatever laws they make, we must obey like blind bleating sheep.

Which is rather interesting given your obsession with Hitler comparisons. How can you possibly obey Romans 13 and declare Hitler immoral at the same time? You can't - because you're not allowed to question rulers. No exception was made for bad rulers. Thankfully, we have a secular government. Isn't that grand? I don't care what a bunch of evangelicals say about how everything was given by god. Of course they'd say that because they think everything from the universe to the log they left in the toilet after a Mexican food-eating contest was granted by God.

Originally Posted by Vizio

You think God should be moral. Great. Now prove that he violated any moral laws.

This has got to be one of the most pointless questions you have yet asked. I think that genocide is immoral. God committed genocide therefore I think God is immoral. Yes ... I think. I don't care what YOU think or what Oscar down the street thinks. My morality says that genocide is bad. Period. PERIOD. And when you're omnipotent and can solve complex problems with but a thought, opting for genocide only makes committing it that much more immoral.

Now, if you want to go around believing that God was perfectly justified in behaving in an immoral fashion, be my guest. Just remember that if God can do whatever he wants and doesn't have a moral code to adhere to, then all of this crap about heaven and an afterlife and all the good and joy he promises could be just a big ruse, a lie, a pile of crap. Because God is under NO obligation to keep his word or his promises.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Have you really looked at that episode in any depth? Do you realize they weren't 42 little kids. They were likely 42 teenagers threatening him with physical harm. In any event, what tells you that it was immoral? The fact that you don't like it?

Bulls--t. I know Biblical revisionists have been hard at work trying to downplay this story given that it is one of the most heinous stories in the Bible. But there is NOTHING in the Bible that says they were teenagers threatening physical harm. NONE. That's just a spoonful of crap they've been trying to get people to eat for years ... and it looks like you went back for seconds.

Originally Posted by Vizio

I absolutely see that God is infallible. I question your ability to judge justice. What makes you think that God erred, acted immorally, or wasn't giving justice?

Because I actually have morals. And I would expect my God to behave in a civilized fashion. I'd expect to see the penultimate example of goodness, kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. Not some barbarian god that slaughters people en masse - usually for simply not worshiping him.

What worries me a bit about people like you is that we humans have a natural instinct to gravitate towards other people who are the same or similar to ourselves. This is one reason why multi-culturalism has been a rather conspicuous failure. We tend to seek out people of the same ethnicity, the same language, the same religion, the same political ideologies .... and the same morality.

Which makes me wonder why you have gravitated toward an interpretation of God that likes to kill and destroy, a god who thinks nothing of wiping out the human race, killing babies and children, and throwing tantrums like a petulant brat who isn't getting his own way.

Not only do you gravitate toward this kind of a God, you staunchly defend God's genocides and mass murders even going so far as to assume infants deserved to be killed just to keep your beliefs from unraveling like a sweater with a loose thread. It really makes me wonder why you have chosen such a belief system - but whatever the case, you HAVE chosen it above the thousands of other choices where God's actions are metaphoric, designed to teach us something, and not literal historical fact.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Why is your opinion the one that we should listen to?

Why should we listen to yours? Your opinion is just one command away from turning into a Christian ISIS. Your interpretation is one of the LAST ones ANYone should be listening to.

Originally Posted by Vizio

That's really what this is about. You not liking it.

No duh, Vizio. Often times we don't like that which is immoral. Wow, you must be some kind of genius or something.

Originally Posted by Vizio

You're really all over the map, aren't you? Now you're changing your whine to God not existing.

My "whine" huh? So what does that make your posts? The "b ... itch and moan" part? Yeah I came back to the existence of God because your entire argument - every last word of it - hinges upon your God being real. If you can't back up the existence of your God, well, guess what ....

Originally Posted by Vizio

Do you approve of abortion?

What difference does that make? You've already said - repeatedly - that my opinion on morality doesn't matter one little bit. So why ask for it now? Because you think you can bait me into a verbal trap? Nah, because you're hoping I'll say I approve of abortions so you can call me a hypocrite because I approve of killing babies.

And then you'll focus the rest of your posts on that one issue. Nope. Not going there.

[Sculptor]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

I have no problem debating with atheists, in any forum. I have a problem with people telling me they're smarter than me because they reject a creator.

We're not the ones professing and obsessing over some invisible sky santa claus no one has even seen, we're the ones that say "prove it" show us this god's face.
If this god existed he/she/it could simply display themselves for five minutes high in the sky for the entire world to see, even move the moon around the sky so we can see it with our own eyes, that would make instant believers out of everyone on the planet, anything less is a total waste of our time to even bother "debating" over invisible fairy tale Santas who say we are all so filthy dirty he/she/it refuses to even step foot on this filthy planet to prove they exist.
It's up to "you" to PROVE to all of us that your god exists, not for us to disprove your negative- an invisible fairy tale is a negative, it's like proving how many fairies can sit on the head of a pin, we could argue the next 100 years how many fairies can fit sitting on the head of a pin and get no closer to the answer.

[Sculptor]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Have you ever read the Bible? I would suggest you go back and...

I don't read bloody, violent, poorly written translated works of fiction thank you.
I've seen enough of that book of death in bits and pieces to know it should have been burned long ago.

[Sculptor]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

Oooohhhhh..... Once again the Pastor's School response.

When challenged, pull out a Bible verse and claim God is on your side.

That's their entire argument conclusion, as soon as you challenge their fairy tales they drag in that dead horse of a book and start quoting rubbish from it because they have no answers, so they defer to some old book of death written by men, men with an agenda to keep the dumb sheeple and simpleton peasants of the era under control, subserviant, obedient, and most importantly- paying huge amounts of taxes to the church, and tithing substantial amounts of their annual incomes all for a fantasy, and hoping it guarantees themselves a seat in "heaven."

I think this says it best:

Marx considered the contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant and irrelevant to the future of humanity. He argued that religious belief had been invented as a reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world. In Marx's view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion, and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind of "opium," or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Over time, however, religion came to be used by the ruling classes as a way to keep people obedient, by promising supernatural rewards in exchange for submission on Earth. Thus, Marx argued that religion - originally intended as an escape from suffering - had been turned into a cause of suffering.

In his view, atheistic philosophy had liberated human beings from suppressing their natural potential and allowed for people to realize that they, rather than any supernatural force that required obedience, were the masters of reality. Marx’s opposition to religion was based especially upon this view in that he believed religion alienated humans from reality and held them back from their true potential.

He considered that religion was an opiate that people needed in order to support themselves in harsh conditions of life, and he furthermore held the view that these harsh conditions were kept in place with the support of religion

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Vizio

It's called the historical grammatical method of hermeneutics. It's really not that complicated.

So you say, and yet Jews and all sorts of differing Christian denominations exist. And they come to very different conclusions using your same method. Despite your claims the evidence shows that this process of extracting bits and pieces from the Bible is quite subjective.

I can't expect you to be consistent, can I?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. More importantly, I doubt you do either. Care to be specific?

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by Vizio

It's called the historical grammatical method of hermeneutics. It's really not that complicated. It involves less of a moral judgement than it does an academic one. You should try it. It's really very clear that the Mosaic law is not something mankind should be living by today.

But that's just your opinion. Can you prove that this works?

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Sculptor

I don't read bloody, violent, poorly written translated works of fiction thank you.
I've seen enough of that book of death in bits and pieces to know it should have been burned long ago.

Unfortunately, if all you've seen it is the blood and death, you've missed the best parts.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

And your point has been soundly and repeatedly refuted.

Oh? So how do you explain morality? What is your basis for judging the morality of others that is objective and is able to be applied independent of personal opinion?