Atheists Are Not Suicide Bombers.

I didn't realize you were commenting either :P

Because you're the one who wants to abolish religion.

I have no desire to force feed religion on atheists.

I also have no desire to force feed my beliefs on other people.

You want to force feed your beliefs on everyone else.

In order to do that, you must provide proof as to why our beliefs are wrong.

If you can't provide proof, you have no right to force feed your beliefs on me or anyone else.

Are you getting it yet? Or are you still too much of a moron to get it?

Wow a whole lot of posts since last time I looked in. Forgive me while I respond.

@Anye:
Thank you for the thought-out and well-formed reply. Though I disagree with some of the theological explanations you give, the fact that we both agree that people have the ability to judge morality for themselves is all I'm really concerned with in this discussion, so much obliged.
Not that I want to dwell too much on it, but since you asked about my mentioning of Job:
In the story, Satan has a conversation with God, a bet really. Historically, a lot of people believe Job to be one of the oldest books of the Bible and it shows in that Satan is acting as the Accuser in God's court. He proposes to God that Job will lose his faith if God curses him with tremendous misfortunes, sickness, pain, and the death of his family. God takes the bet. Disregarding the outcome, either Satan is really really stupid for taking a bet with an all-knowing being, or God really does not know the future and takes the bet because he's confident. Putting aside that it seems unspeakably cruel to make someone's life a living hell just to test his/her faith, he's God, he should know the answer already.

@Bulleta:
Despite the fact that I do agree with your main point, that religion causes harm, you're really not doing a good job of arguing it. You seem fairly preoccupied with trying to prove that God doesn't exist, even though you've just said that you don't have to prove it.

Let's get away from that and make this more intellectual.

The original post is "Atheists are not suicide bombers." Even if one was, it wouldn't make all atheists terrorists. Similarly, one, or even many members of a religion committing a horrible crime or act of terrorism doesn't make them all criminals or terrorists. Obvious point is obvious.

What separates the religious from the non-religious person is the belief in some higher spiritual power. This is the main unifying point of all religions. As no spiritual power has been proven to exist, let's assume, therefore, that all religions involve belief in something that has has not been shown to exist. The question is, is that bad?

In my humble opinion, it can be. When one is willing to believe in something that may well not exist, then one may be willing to do things against normal reason and logic out of concern for perceived consequences (which, again, might not exist). Whenever someone is willing to go against reason and put the consequences of an afterlife over the consequences of this life, which we can see and experience for ourselves, I would say that the effects are adverse.

Let's talk about examples:
-Many muslims believe that Islam must spread over the entire world. They believe it is their moral duty to save the billions of people on this planet from damnation. Unfortunately, a select few believe that if they have to kill a few thousand to further the goals to save billions, then God will approve.
-Many Christians believe literally in the creation story of Genesis and thus forbid their children to listen to theories of evolution and genetics. Huge members of generations of potential scientists are directed away from scientific fields, and they grow up to protest anything having to do with evolution, including genetic and stem-cell research, which could one day treat our most horrible diseases.
-Adherents to Hindu preserve the caste system in India. Whatever caste you're born into, that's what you do. You cannot advance, you cannot follow any true calling, you cannot change who you are. If you're not satisfied, don't worry, don't complain, just be a good citizen and you'll be born into a better caste in your next life.
-Buddhists often feel that they should eschew the comforts of this world to become pure and achieve a state of Nirvana. Rather than acknowledge what their bodies want, they may live their entire lives in self-denial.
-Ancient Taoists, eager to create an elixir of immortality, believed purifying their chi would allow them to safely consume often lethal combinations of substances, including mercury. It didn't.
-Wiccans are diverse group, but a significant number believe in magic, claiming that they don't understand how it works, just that it does. Though a minor gripe, I would question what happens when people choose to use magic towards a goal rather than solving a problem themselves. The instant you choose a magical solution over a real one, you're getting into dangerous territory.
etc.

Now, I'm not saying that we should abolish religion. People have the right to believe whatever they want. What I am saying is that belief in something spiritual becomes dangerous the instant it contradicts reason and harms something real.

Peace (and sorry for the long post)!

I'd say Satan is really really stupid :)

God already knew Job would not lose his faith. God can see what is truly in our hearts.

"... For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is." 1 SAMUEL 16:7

And I must point out that God did not directly cause those things to happen to Job. That was Satan's doing. Jehovah merely allowed Satan to do these things. Which you can argue is cruel in a way I guess.

:) The pleasure is mine; I enjoy a discussion of opinions even if they don't agree! I understand that while truth in and of itself may not be relative, perspectives are, and I've no right to judge anyone's point of view in any situation--especially since the fact stands that I could very well be mistaken. Personally, I find that being open to different perspectives is very enlightening and humbling as well :)

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. Given your two choices, I'd obviously take the first, heh. :3 I'm of the belief that God trusted Job's integrity. It's true that he didn't have to do all this to Job, but the story never ends with the verse, "and in all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing" (1:22). It would have been a very succinct and sensible story otherwise, but it doesn't end there. Job doesn't sin in his words by not trusting God with the situation, but he does bring up the simple question, "WTF DID I DO TO DESERVE THIS!?" (Job 26-30--it's a four-chapter long WTF! rant.) God answers him with another four-chapter rant, basically saying, "CUZ IM DA JUGGANAUT GOD, BISH" (YEAH, I know, sorry; old joke is old.... Can't help it. I just watched a video and it was stuck in my head o_<;), and essentially humbles Job--that he is the God who created the wonders of the earth; who is man to question the acts of God?

It's sort of the same way the Bible explains things: Why did God create Adam and Eve, fully knowing they'd sin; why did he then send his Son to pay for those sins? Why didn't he just create Man as a sinless, obedient creature, so he wouldn't have to do all that? Both God and Man would not have to endure such grief in that case. But then how else could love be expressed? And how valuable is the love of one who doesn't have a choice in the process?

In both cases, the expression of God's love isn't to save someone from immediate suffering--pain of the body, pain of the loss of ones close to your heart--the expression of God's love is in the salvation of the soul, that if only Man would return even a portion of God's unrequited love, God would willingly receive him into his presence: How much more precious is the love of someone who chooses willingly to love, and not grudgingly, not for the purpose of gain (which, I would say, is not love), but for the sole purpose of loving truly?

(Those are all rhetorical questions, by the way. XD)

Isaiah 43:21, 24-25: "the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise... have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses. I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more."

That's why I don't believe in a self-serving gospel--"Believe, and you'll have eternal life!" I choose to love God and "proclaim his praise" with the way I live my life.

Also, as a last note,Agreed :)

Yeah, you can. Because it is.

Whether Satan is stupid or not is up for debate. The truth is that Satan wins the 2nd round of the bet: after a 2nd round of treatment, Job finally does get POed and curses the day he was born. Satan was right, and, well, God was wrong.

But that's not even that relevant, the book of Job is a crappy example because it's meant to serve as a lesson about how bad things happen to good people; it's not meant to serve as a record of any such historical event. It's a very old book, likely based on a story that predates even the ancient form of Judaism depicted in the Bible. Forget the event, let's talk about the morality of it.



Now, that is indeed what God says to Job. But you and I both agree that humans have the ability to perceive morality and can judge right from wrong. Let's try a thought experiment then, shall we?

Let's say King Arthur who rules a vast kingdom and one of his best servents is Lord Decentfellow of Dingleberry (or whatever). He wants to make sure that Decentfellow is truly loyal, so he orders his knights to go and set fire to his land, kill all his servants, and kill off all his children. He asks Merlin to observe in his magic mirror to see if Decentfellow still trusts the King. He does.
So then Arthur tells his knights to go and make him drink water infected with the Bubonic Plague, just to make sure. After a few days, Merlin sees that Decentfellow wants to know why Arthur did this to him.
Choose your own ending:
A) Arthur says, "I just wanted you to remember who I am."
B) Arthur scoffs and says, "I'm the King. I don't have to explain myself to you, shut up!"
C) "I've got my reasons, but I'm not going to tell you."

This is pretty much the Job story, only it's not God, it's King Arthur. So, is King Arthur acting morally?

Of course not. Any person can see that. But when it's God, the rules of morality don't apply. That's the theological argument: God is good, so nothing he says or does can be wrong. I'm reminded of Richard Nyxon's definition of "Executive Priveledge," where he said, "(It means that) if the President does it, it's not illegal."

Therein lies the danger: if you can't say that the story is immoral simply because God is depicted, then how can you be trusted when it's a real situation on the line and it relates to your religious faith? Do you throw reason out the door because God wants you to? This is what this thread is all about... when you stop being skeptical because it involves God, bad things happen.

This would be a great argument, Anye, except that is has a few inconsistencies:
1. Why not just create Man flawed? Why have a Fall?
2. And much more importantly: if God is concerned with the salvation of the soul, why create a situation where the soul can be lost? In fact, the way Christianity lines it up, most souls are lost.
3. Religion is less about choice than you think it is. The biggest factor in your religion is where you were born and who your parents are. Most people who are born to a religion stay in that exact same religion until the day they die, and a lot of them are positive they got the right one, despite knowing nothing about all the others.

Think about it. Christian doctrine is that people are redeemed through Jesus Christ by accepting him as their savior. Great deal if you're a Christian, but most people are not. Less than 30% of the world population are Christian. As I've said, most of those people picked their "wrong" religion because of where they were born and who their parents were. That means that the majority of the people living on earth right now, including me, most of Asia, large portions of Africa, all the Jews, Muslims, indigenous peoples, etc, are going to Hell, mostly through no fault of their own.

If God is all-knowing, he knew this was going to happen and deliberately made it so that nearly five billion people would end up suffering unspeakable eternal torment. And that's not even counting the non-Christians who died in the past. I can't think of anything that's been said that justifies that.

So, for me, that leaves a couple of ideas:
1. That the situation as described above is untrue and, if God exists, this does not describe him.
2. This situation is true. Aren't we justified in asking why that is moral? It's an atrocity and a scam on an incomprehensible scale, how can one just make it go away by saying, "It's God's plan, therefore it is just."

Again, I'm not in favor of abolishing religion, but I would like people to approach it with a little skepticism. Just because your holy book of choice says "God wants you to do X" doesn't make X automatically moral.

It's not entirely fair to include the extremists to prove that religion is destructive. What they believe in is a severely warped view, driven by hatred, and is not part of the core religion.

I don't believe that the fault lies with religion, but more the fact we are all human. People commit horrible acts all the time hiding behind various fronts (hi2u PETA, ELF, ALF, KKK, NBPP, etc). And let's not forget what people have done for the sake of LOVE. I'm sure we have all heard about the spouses who murder their better half and kids due to one reason or another. And how about that Amy fisher :p

Anyway, my point is that religion is not the root of all evil, but rather something evil people hide behind because they can (insert your Muslim extremist example here).

Children do eventually grow up into adults, and most of them will form their own ideas on the matter. Not everyone raised in a strict Christian home (applies to any religion, really) will carry those beliefs into adulthood. The argument that Christianity is depriving the Science field of many bright minds because (as you put implied) they absolutely, 100% reject evolution is just way, way out there.

The other thing here is that Christians aren't necessarily against stem cell research.....more so embryonic stem cell research. The whole argument of "when does life begin" comes into play here. And typically religious folk value human life, even if it's just a mass of cells at the time.

The caste system isn't explicitly religious, but more of a social system. The system does work well with Hinduism though, as people strive to live within good dharma so that in their next life they will be better off.

There is nothing wrong with a humble living. If that is how an individual chooses to live their life, that is entirely up to them. They are doing no harm to themselves or others. How exactly is this negative?


I'm really not trying to pick on you personally, but the comments above just seemed over sensationalized. :X

You're right, Zarine, the examples I gave do not mean those religions are themselves evil. I was pointing out that they are examples of how religious thinking without regard for reason leads to some serious consequences. I'll be brief and defend some of my examples, however:
-Islam: Terrorists are extremists. Nonetheless, religion is the enabler and it has garnered them many non-participating supporters.
-Christianity: The evolution issue is hardly an extreme. Here in the U.S., it's estimated that perhaps 50% of the population doesn't believe in evolution. That's a travesty. That's wasted potential. That's religious doctrine getting in the way of scientific progress.
-Hinduism: The caste system is not merely social, it is also religious, and its justifications are of a religious nature.
-Buddhism: I'll concede the example I gave isn't a very good one, it's just the only one I could think of at the time of writing.

Examples aside, I still think my point remains valid. Religion is fine right up until it supercedes logical reasoning, and unfortunately that happens more than it really should.

While God is a law unto himself says "My purpose will stand, and I will do as I please" (Isaiah 46:10), He, as Creator God, has every right to, hasn't he?

But the thing is, in his commands to his followers, he has never condoned immoral acts, nor are we permitted to do so. Any believer who does so sins against God; if he is not aware of it, it is up to the rest of the church to guide him biblically "in gentleness and truth," but if he is aware of the sin he commits and knows full well that it is something contradictory to Christian doctrine, then he needs to consider his relationship with God, and determine whether he lives to love God or himself.

1. You could say that he really did create Man as flawed in the first place, to have caused the Fall. (Man, try saying flaw and fall in the same sentence out loud. It makes those words seem soooooo weird o_o)

2 and 3 go hand in hand, so I'll answer them both together:
The Bible does go into this unclear subject: what about the vast amounts of people who a) have never heard the gospel of salvation, b) died before the time of Christ's atonement, or c) were born into a family whose culture and traditions instill beliefs and laws contradictory to that of Christianity?

In Romans 1:18, it states that the wrath of God is saved for those who suppress the truth, not for those who are unaware of it. Romans 2:12-16 says that those who were not aware of the LawSo I believe that, based on this scripture, those who aren't aware of the gospel (and thus, have not been given the choice) are judged by God's own undisclosed standards of judgment--we do know, from the text, that it states that it is the "law of their hearts" and their "consciences bear witness," meaning that--like you said, moral standing isn't a religious doctrine, but I would go as far as to say that it is in fact innate human nature. At least with an omniscient God, he'll know their hearts' intentions of whether they chose to do good with their lives or not.

Romans 3:21-26 says:Even Abraham did not believe in Christ, but in chapter 4 it goes on to say that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

So, in the case of all nongospel-related situations, God has his own way of judging. But in the case where you are given a choice, the resposibility lies with you. I think Zarine said it correctly:
But God's "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13b). The beginning of this verse says that "Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful," Basically to say that God is JUST and not unfair; he knows the hearts of each person and will not judge unfairly.
55:7-8: "'Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord."

And in Isaiah 57:15-16:Psalm 51:16-17:

First, I said I was done, but that was technically in context of attempting (not so)complicated allegory, which is easily twisted, and so I am. Its foolish arguing theology with people who are ignorant of the wiriing of a given religon.

earlier I reminded this thread that terms like "fact" shouldn't be attributed to THEORIES. Now, I asm compelled to break my silence because you are abusing the word "PROOF". Proof means 100% absolute. This is why you should KNOW the Bible before you try to critcize it. That "cute" little box graphic would have been great the premise could hold water. I didn't intend this to last more than eightteen words and here they are:

Why don't you fire up google and type in "MESSIANIC JUDAISM" before you make another false claim? Kthx





****you might be an atheist if your lack of faith compelled you to count that.*****

I just wanted to say that the last two pages have been incredibly interesting to read and am glad this thread is actually going somewhere of note and showing a real debate. I'm mostly just a cross between stupefied and impressed by Anye and Maruraba to maintain the level of civility and coherent debate that has gone on so far. A pleasure to read. (on the internet of all places)

You all deserve rate-ups (not you, Bulleta/Einhorn) for this, even though they don't really matter. Dx

Oh and I'm telling God (he reads my LJ) that you give praise and worship to the Goddess Altana, Anye, you better hope he's down with her.

I agree. I just wished this debate happened 14 pages ago :p

Right? I would've missed this all entirely had I not randomly thought to check this forum section since this was seemingly all un-mained from the Latest Topics, so I can imagine there are a lot of others that are going to miss out. Likely un-mained because of how crappy this thread started out of the gate. lol

Well, crappy threads deserve to be un-mained. Had it been an actual debate, and not some immature brat spewing rhetoric 5x in one day, this conversation could've actually been interesting.

Hey, Anye, check it out! I think we're being egged on. :)

Thank you for the kind comments everyone. Well, I really should be working on some projects for grad school, but I guess I can take a break from the serious matters of writing a second iteration lesson plan to discuss religion.

Okay then...No, that gives him the ability, not necessarily the right. In ancient times, children were considered the property of their parents. With certain restrictions in each society, they could do pretty much whatever they wanted. God was seen in the same light. Part of why I doubt the Bible is because it is truly a product of its times, and I don't think it depicts a god I wish to believe in. (Note: that is not the reason I became an atheist, though it is partly related to why I stopped going to church; please do not make assumptions.)

But on to the main topic: morality. Let's say that God exists and he is good. The question is, in what way is he good? I think the understanding of goodness is central to how people perceive morality. The way you've put it, Anye, sounds a bit like this:
1. God is the definition and epitome of goodness. Thus anything God does is good.
I perceive goodness as being an outside quality, a quality that a truly benevolent deity perfectly matches, but nonetheless is separate. In that case, we have option #2:
2. Goodness is a defined set of criteria that perfectly describes God. Thus, God can do evil, but chooses to not do so.

The first is a tautology. God = Good, Good = God, is pretty much saying God = God or Good = Good. It's meaningless. It also leads to some sticky hypothetical situations. For example:
God is in Heaven one day and observes some random stranger going about his daily business on Earth. God has no problem with this man morally. God's plan will not be changed if this man lives or dies. God makes a piano drop on the guy in what we perceive as a freak accident. God only did it for the lulz. Is this moral?
Under option 1, it is, because everything God does is good.
Under option 2, it is probably not, because needlessly killing someone for your own amusement is something I think most of us agree would not be moral.

The problem with the assumption that everything God does is good is that it negates the ability to look at scripture, any religious scripture, and question if it would truly be the will of a benevolent deity. I once saw a clip of those Westboro Baptist Church idiots and one of them being interviewed said, "We don't hate gays, God does!" No logic, no reason, no critical thought. Again, extreme example, but you can't tell me that far more moderate believers don't have similar ideas.
Well...andand
Let's assume that God does exist, specifically the God of Abraham. This leaves some scary options:
1. The above verses are real and depict what God really said and desired. If we go by Goodness option 1, then it's moral. But again, that's a nonsensical tautology. If we go by Goodness option 2, then God is not wholly benevolent, unless you want to argue that slaughtering children is A-OK.
2. What is depicted in the Bible is a product of savage times and does not truly depict what God desires, but rather was people abusing his name to further their own ends. Thus, God is benevolent, but his message is being obscured and he has not seen fit to correct it, while millions upon millions willingly accept crimes like infanticide, rape, and murder because, hey, if God said it, it's okay.

When you're willing to start accepting that such awful crimes are okay because you think it is what God wants, and nothing God says can be bad, then you open the gateway to some truly unspeakable acts. That is why, if we are to define morality and truly combat evil in this world, we must define goodness outside of God and religion and place it squarely within the real world.

ROFL, thanks guys! /blush.... And Cai, preez. God and Altana are like CHILL, bro. They both laugh every time an Elvaan rides a choco. >;3

Anyways, on to the srsbsns:It's alright, I try not to make assumptions on people's true beliefs unless baldly stated. I did make a guess, though, that you had to have been exposed to Christianity at some point, as you seem to know more about it than most "Christians" I know ;)

Starting from the top part of the quote, I suppose that's another place our opinions tend to differ; I consider a Creator has the right to do as he so chooses, such as an artist does his or her own artwork. I would compare it loosely to the way a parent governs his or her children, in that parents are responsible for creating a safe environment in which their children are to grow up. But obviously this is up for debate as some parents are more willing to over-protect their children, while other parents completely neglect their children's well-being. Personally, I don't consider children the property of their parents, but there is a certain amount of responsibility a parent has for their children--a responsibility to guide and teach and educate, but not control. But that is where the analogy differs: Parents are essentially human and not the ultimate creators of their children--as in, they have no control over the genetic makeup nor even the choice of the life of the child (in some cases of unfortunate miscarriage). In the terms where a God who has created everything from the most miniscule subatomic particle to the universe in its entirety, I do believe that he has both the right and the ability to do as he pleases. But again, that is a matter of opinion, after all.



:/ In your situation, I would say you're drastically anthropomorphizing God, actually. While he does tend to express certain "basic human emotions" such as anger, grief, pleasure, etc, he is by no means human himself; I doubt he would ever do anything "for the lulz." Whereas any human given supernatural power would have the temptation to do something with that power for his amusement, I'm of the belief that God never does anything "for the lulz," and in the situation where a freak accident occurs, there is essentially no explanation nor concrete reason as to why it should have happened. Unless God chooses to reveal that reason by whatever means, questioning the motives behind "acts of God" is futile.

And God doesn't hate gays. Seriously, the non-biblically based things "Christians" say these days sickens me. :/ Personally, I consider homosexuals the same way I consider myself, as Christ explained in the parable of the good Samaritan after he had commanded: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is essentially no difference between myself and any "sinner" as I myself am a sinner, and THUS do I not have the right to judge nor condemn anyone who sins (Romans 2:1).

THUS, going back to the beginning of that quote, while I agree with your first condition as "God is the epitome of goodness" and that "the understanding of goodness is central to how people perceive morality", there is a key difference between the acts of God and the acts of man. I'll go into it further within the next few quotes.

While it is true that the Old Testament talks of the slaughter of people of different nations, you need to take into consideration that, at that time, that's exactly what other nations were doing. If Israel were to survive past that point of endless war and genocide, they obviously could not have lived out a "life of love and peace" amongst warring nations. This may or may not suffice as a good enough excuse for needless slaughter, but there is something to be said about the context of the time about which it was written. This is the case of Numbers 31. Which, in fact, states in Numbers 31:19-20 that they were to go through rites of purification, illustrating that the act of slaughter was not holy.

As for the cases in Exodus and Ezekiel, that's actually within the nation of Israel--in this case, God is acting upon his wrath against people who swore to follow his commands and broke their promise. But God, in the same book says, "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)

Now, to directly address your argument, this is not the way Christians are commanded to act. It was in the Old Testament, and you can continue arguing the point that acts of murder as commanded by God are cruel and savage, but those acts committed by the Israelites at that time have nothing to do with the actions of Christians in this day. I think I've stated this earlier, but we don't even obey the keeping of the Sabbath. Hell, we don't even obey the command, "You shall not commit adultery." Why? Christ extends the keeping of the Sabbath to a life of worship EVERYDAY, and extends the act of adultery to "looking at a woman/man lustfully." Tell me one person who has been able to do that, and more as explained in Matthew 5. We, therefore, have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, BUT are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Romans 3:23-24).

You see, the Old Testament testifies to the standards of God and the amount of love towards his people and his wrath towards their sins, but the New Testament testifies to his willingness to reach out in love and even go as far as sacrificing himself in order to not commit these acts any longer.

In this context after Christ's sacrifice, the actions of his followers are to emulate his. I'm not going to give you the entire gospel, but if you want to know the true heart of Christianity, I would advise you to read the New Testament in its entirety.

The thing is, God didn't change his mind. In the most anthropomorphic sense, God found a "loophole" as it were, to exercise his justice AND express his love for his people at the same time, through the sacrifice of Christ. Thus there is no bloodshed as a result of our sins, nor is there anything but forgiveness for the sins of other people.

Ugh, project going slow. Maybe I need to get the ol' cranium working.

Well, Anye, I think I owe you an apology. When I talked about "making assumptions," I was just taking steps to make sure some joker didn't come in and go "Ah ha! That's why you're an atheist, you just don't blah blah blah blah!" I didn't feel that you were making unfair judgments of me, and I'm sorry if you thought I was insinuating that.

I will tell you that I have read the Bible. The whole thing, skimming through the "begats," Genesis to Revelations. I wasn't looking for ammo at the time, I was still going to church and felt that I should take the time to read the manual. I have a feeling we both know people we wish had done the same. :)

But on to the debate!

I have to admit, I don't find your arguments this time particularly compelling, though they are interesting. I suppose it is just a matter of opinion as to how one views God... but considering monikers like "Heavenly Father," and the supposed amount of care and love God is reputed to put into the world, I cannot help but find the analogy of "God as Parent" to be far more appropriate than "God as Artist." When you knowingly create a work of art, you may be delighted with it, but a parent truly loves his/her children (well, if they're a good parent). And when you create life or invest yourself into the role of caretaker, you assume a responsibility. I accept that if God exists, he would be a higher being and thus not wholly comprehensible, but, as we've established, humans have the ability to perceive, reason, and determine right from wrong. Thus, it is not out of the question to believe that a benevolent God would assume responsibility for his creations and thus not treat them haphazardly (i.e. "whatever he wants").
I wasn't saying that God does such things, or that he would, if he existed. It's a hypothetical situation to prove a point: if God did something terrible "for the lulz" (someone make this a t-shirt!), I'm arguing that it is not automatically moral just because God did it. I'm sure you believe God would never do something like that, and I don't think a benevolent deity would either. But if he did, then we would be justified in judging, based on all the presented facts, that the act was immoral.

I'm sorry if you mistook me as saying that "The Bible says God hates gay people." I used it as a particularly shocking example of how someone could take what is written in scripture and act on it without questioning the morality of it. Again, it's about determining morality. Without a healthy dose of skepticism, and with a sizable amount of blind acceptance, you have people doing reprehensible things in the name of God.

I do think it's a product of the time it was written. I think it was written by people, reflective of their own view that their wars were justified and righteous and God was on their side. (Hm, rings a bell... rings a lot of bells, historically.) But really:
1. "Because other nations were doing it" doesn't make it morally acceptable.
2. What possible threat could come from babies not old enough to even walk on their own?
3. The Israelites had God's protection. He had no problem whooping some *** directly against the Egyptions in Exodus, so why not give those other nations some bloody water, firey rain, or grapety purple-- I mean, or swarms of frogs? Sure, you can argue that God didn't want people to get too dependent on him, but still, why was genocide the best option?

But we're getting off topic. It's a lot of conjecture, and while interesting, it's not really what I'm focusing on.My argument is that morality, that "Goodness," is something that is determined by reason, that "God wills it, so it is good," is not good justification for doing something. Now you may be right that the acts of the Israelites have nothing to do with the modern Christian. Not the point, the two groups acknowledge the same god. If one accepts these stories as being about the same deity, then it is only right to ask questions about the acts God commanded. Are they true? If not, why do we still have them in our scripture? If they are true, what reasons could have motivated God to give such orders? Now, you, Anye, have clearly thought the reasons out, though I don't think it sufficiently answers those questions. But plenty of others might read that and not give it a second thought at all. There are people who would set every inch of this world on fire if their scripture said to. That is the danger of religion unchecked by thought.

In short, too many people do not ask the tough questions. More of them should.

Ahhh dammit. Right before I go to bed, too. <_> Just to clarify, however:This wasn't directed at you, but at the people you cited, whatwasit.... Baptist morons or something. XD I was just making a point that they were completely wrong.

***. lol <3

I read this as "Christ's sadface" and started laughing so hard that I totally got off track and had to back up a paragraph. lolol

Sorry to intervene!

I lol'd. XD Actually, I think there's a translation of the Bible out there in lolCats. :o

/sigh, Actually, Maru my friend, I must take a hiatus after this last response--I've entered the dangerous region of "blissful indifference" the week and weekend before finals week, and this cold is getting the best of me at the same time >_< I've been on these forums longer than I've ever been at a time, though I do think it was time well-spent--just not in an academic sense. :3

---

If anything, I'm not exactly posting to "compel" you, hahaha. XD I'm honestly not trying to convince you nor anyone else to "convert to Christianity," I'm just posing my views in response to yours; if it lacks a bit of umph then... *shrug* it's all I've got at this point, and I apologize for any disappointment I may have caused. :3

However, I would have to agree with you with the "God as Parent" being far more appropriate of an analogy, given that the Bible itself speaks of the God-human relationship within that context, as well as within a husband-wife context. I can provide passages for you if you're not familiar with them.

• Matthew 7:9-11 - God as parent

• Matthew 23:37 - Christ as, uh... a hen.

• Ephesians 5:22-33 - Christ as the head and husband of the church

(Also, just as a note, the consideration of God as Father has its origins in Judaic religious customs.)

To counter your last point, however, I would never use the word "haphazard" with God's actions by any means--but rather, just like you said, he is a being completely outside of our dimension of thinking, and the way we perceive things, such as death and pain being the ultimatum of suffering, may not be what we perceive them to be. I would think that, within the context of Christianity and as stated in Matthew 10:28-31, physical death and suffering of the body are not as critically important as the spiritual death and suffering of the soul:And you can see that, within the context of Christianity, God's emphasis on salvation through Christ's death and resurrection speaks of the ones he values most: the souls of his children. And just for the record, Christians aren't the only "children of God," but the entirety of the human race.


1. No, it doesn't make it morally acceptable, but I did address the fact that it was not even lawfully acceptable as the warriors had to undergo cleansing and purification rituals for the acts of murder. To clarify further, other nations would not have thought twice about the act of murder in the medium of war (even WE don't, come to think of it), but the God of Israel thought differently, it would seem.
2. I wouldn't be able to back this with any sort of text, but just as a hypothesis, the "babies" could pose as a threat 15-20 years later in vengeance for their fathers' and mothers' deaths. That, again, is just a mere guess.
3. This is also a question I'm unable to answer based on any textual evidence. Perhaps for the same reason as stated above, but other than that the Bible is, as you stated, a product of its times, which is why certain passages need to be read within the context of their time to be understood, in terms of warfare, geography, kingdoms, rulers, and the like.


I see what you're saying, but given the Bible in its entirety, I don't determine the overall reason of death as something to be condoned, but rather as a representation of the result of sin. I realize that, in your point of view, that doesn't suffice as a satisfactory reason for which so much bloodshed is present in the early books of the Old Testament, but it is what it is; if it weren't there, would the message be any more acceptable?
Goodness and morality, apart from a constant God, are inconstant, they are relative to each person--most, perhaps, in miniscule differences, but essentially different to people of differing points of view. Even now, two different groups of people consider the act of war as necessary, while others consider it the unnecessary act of bloodshed and murder. Those of the former view pose the soldiers as courageous, brave, heroic, to stand in the midst of war for the sake and safety of their country, while those of the latter view pose the soldiers as heartless and mindless puppets of a government bent on domination by deleterious means. Obviously, there are varying degrees of these views, of which I've presented perhaps the most extreme, but it remains what it is to this day. Which one has the correct representation of "goodness", and by what standard do you judge?

God's justice is clear and precise, as stated in the Old and New Testament: though we deserve an eternity apart from God's presence, he makes the first move in an act of loving sacrifice, that if we accept it and choose to return his love, he is willing to accept us into his presence; as a result we strive to express this love towards others. The death of the soul would be to experience the lack of God's love.

Heh heh, well, it looks like we both suffered the same affliction, Anye, though you had the courtesy to post about it. Finals and Comps took up all my time last week and now I'm just moving kinda slowly.

But I hope we've still got some juice left because a good give and take is such a rare thing on the Internet. :)

However, it'll have to wait a few more days. It is the holidays, after all, and this Atheist still celebrates Christmas with his family.

Peace on earth and good will toward men (and women) and all that. :)

I applaud you, huggles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

Guess what time it is, kiddies? :)

Well, I've been busy with this and that, enjoying my winter break, enjoying the new class I'm teaching, and enjoying FFXI as I have for the last several years. But I still enjoy a good intellectual discussion, so I'm reviving this. Ready the rotten tomatoes if this becomes a necropost!

Being an atheist in America carries a certain stigma. I don't really advertise my theological position, but I'm not hiding it either. If someone asks, I tell them. I try to distance myself from the hardcore anti-religious nutcases out there who call all relgious people fools and steadfastly insist that the world would be just right as rain if only religion were gone. Gimme a break.

But as I said, it carries a stigma. The word "godless" indicates moral bankruptcy. Pick up a Bible, turn to Psalm 14:1, and you get "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." On a recent return trip from a wedding, I listened to a sermon on the radio where a preacher was exhorting (and I'm quoting as close as I can), "How could anyone NOT believe? Those people, those atheists, those agnostics, they know... of course they know! But they just don't want to know. They want to keep living their lives their own way, because it's easier." So, yeah, I don't broadcast it. Not that I think anyone should really broadcast their religion (or lack thereof) anyway. See Matthew 6 for that one. I don't care what people think about what I think.

What I do loudly advocate is skepticism. And in order to be a skeptic, you have to know about things. Like those who draw their resources from many places, those who draw information from many places can realistically evaluate the world around them and make wise decisions. The problem with a lot of religious people, and I do mean A WHOLE DAMN LOT, is that they accept a lot of ideas based on faith. And some of those ideas lead to some dangerous actions. This isn't just about suicide bombers, oh no, this can be much much worse. (Note, I'm not trying to be political about this, it's as much about big business as it is about politicians and besides, the article is old, so it's not about current politics anyway.)

So we have in the world a group of people who deny legitimate, rigorously tested ideas like the age of the planet or that the things on the earth might eventually, y'know, RUN OUT, and these people are making decisions that affect you and me right now and will affect any kids we have or might have for the foreseeable future.

Religion relies on faith. And faith is the opposite of skepticism. Perhaps everyone has a bit of both, but if there's one thing I won't back down from, it's this: you damn sure better have more informed skepticism than blind faith, because if you're blind, you can't see where the hell you're going.

P.S. I sure hope Anye sees this. I have missed our go-arounds this last month. ^^