I only told him that the Skyfather in the Bible endorsed these list of things. Let alone this deity enjoyed murdering 42 boys for insulting an old man. This is when he got pissed. Denied everything and insulted me with scripture. That was very hypocritical of him. It’s right there in his Bible. All he has to do is pick it up and read it.
When your views and god’s views are indistinguishable (I can count the number of theists on one hand that I’ve met that don’t confuse what they want, with what they think god wants); there is no reason to check the accuracy of anything you say; because it came from god (yourself).
I don’t think it’s fair to say the Bible “endorses” those things. Both sides of the argument accuse one another of cherry picking verses from the Bible to fit the narrative, and I don’t see how this is any different. While the verses themselves are accurate, it’s not a fair judgement of the belief to isolate those verses. Christians often do say context is important (which always makes me roll my eyes) but I think it would be disingenuous to not do so.
From my understanding, terrible things DID happen throughout the OT, many of those things by god himself. But without the context of the ENTIRE OT and the NT, the point is lost. It’s kind of like a slow progression towards the truth. If the OT attempted to preach “turn the other cheek” to the people of the times, it would have fallen on deaf ears. I mean even when Christ preached in the NT, the people couldn’t even handle THAT, and killed him for it. Imagine if he tried those things 2000 years before.
I think it actually begs a bigger ethical question that you totally missed. It reminds me of the Trolley Dilemma. Maybe by killing the people in Soddem and Gomorrah, the rest of the world was saved… would that make it unethical for god to kill those people? Noah’s flood is described the same way. The people were killed because there were no believers among them. By sacrificing them, the world could start over. Would that be unethical or ethical? Room for debate there, but interesting nonetheless.
The god described to me by the Bible, and almost every Christian, religiously Jewish, and Muslim I’ve met: god can get any result they want, from any action.
According to them; their god could save the rest of the world (or ANYTHING else he wanted), by doing less than snapping his fingers. In that context, your suggestions are ludicrous.
1 Like
Ah. Nicely put. Sure, I’m an atheist and I do not believe in the god of the bible (or any other gods, for that matter). And even beyond that, even IF the god of the bible was real, I still would not worship it, as it displays all the characteristics of an egotistical, arrogant, insecure, narcissistic bully.
Now, all that being said, I will also be the first to admit I honestly DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN if any of the nonsense in the bible is true or not. All I can say for CERTAIN on my part is that the shit in there makes ZERO sense as written, and it is absolutely ABSURD to me to suggest it was written/dictated by a PERFECT, ALL-KNOWING, ALL-POWERFUL god. My simple and feeble intellect just cannot process that notion, especially in light of how Man has used that “good book” over the centuries. However, I do not begrudge those who require the belief in some form of “Sky Daddy” to help them cope with living their life. As long as they do not harm, nor advocate the harming of, innocent people, then “To each his own,” as far as I’m concerned. Sure, I may think it is a bit silly in some cases, but it is THEIR life, not mine. Besides, how many here (or anywhere) can say FOR CERTAIN how this thing we call “Life” REALLY started? Personally, I’m just along for the ride and trying to enjoy it as much as possible while I can.
1 Like
That’s not true nyarlathotep, at least not with any logical consistency. I mean god COULD save anyone, yes. The same way christ could have obviously avoided his own crucificiction. But you have to remember the point is not just to “save” people, but to set forth a series of events that will make an impact on others’ belief. Free will muddies the water, and the idea that people have to return the love of god.
So the point is, ya, god could have maybe not destroyed the city and just saved everyone, but that would be logically inconsistent with the ideas that people have to use their own free will to decide to love god. So I think the stories are set up in a way to help people come to their own belief, not just forced on them by god. And hey, who knows, maybe the all loving god brought all those sacrificed into heaven anyway. So once again, whos to say the killing was unethical? Maybe by killing them all, those killed were saved AND the rest who witnessed. …?
Also, don’t forget what god does for our understanding is limited by our own limitations, not his. So he does things in a way that WE can understand. It is obvious by our endless debates that we do have a hard time undersYa ding any of it haha.
And for the record, I’m not saying I KNOW any of this. I just would be more hesitant to use superficial arguments against anything that is clearly deeper and more complex than is obvious.
I appreciate your response Tin man. It’s honest. You know what I think about a lot? Multiple dimensions. Science tells us that there is most likely 11 (or 12) dimensions that exist in this universe. We, being 3 dimensional beings can only observe the lower 3. That means there are 8 dimensions higher than us that we don’t understand, and CANT understand because we are limited to the 3rd dimensional senses. That idea alone makes it seem frivolous to even argue whether or not god exists, and to try to find scientific data to support one way or another seems infantile. I mean what if angels are in the fifth and God is in the 11th? How could we prove that? It makes my skin crawl even thinking about it but so deeply fascinates me. It also humbles me enough to realize that we may never get the proof that god exists, but so far, science leaves plenty of room for his existence.
Now The debates about which description of god is correct are just the consequence of our baby minds lol fun, but not really even helpful.
1 Like
Good gracious. I thought this method of initiating specific belief under the guise of choice might have died off with, say, Cardinal Cisneros in fifteenth Century Granada.
Old ways often do die the hardest, eh?
1 Like
Hmmmm… 
… Let’s seeee… Uh, you own a small business in a little local strip mall, with several other small businesses around you. One day while sweeping the sidewalk in front of your door, there’s a big explosion in two of the businesses across the parking lot. “HOLY FUCK! What the hell happened?!?” Well, a couple of days later after the “excitement” dies down a bit, a polite guy in a nice suit enters your business and introduces himself as “The Boss.” He then proceeds to tell you, “Mr. Curiosity, as you are aware, this area can be very dangerous at times. And that is why I am here today. I care about you and your business, and I truly want to see you succeed and have your business grow and flourish. For that to happen, though, all you have to do is give me ten percent your earnings. But it is totally up to you whether or not to pay me. I can’t force you. How does that sound?”
Well, obviously, you tell “The Boss” that sounds like a rather shitty deal, and you tell him you choose not to pay. The Boss replies, “Like I said, Mr. Curiosity, it is your choice. You must freely choose to pay me for caring about your business and wanting you to be successful. But it saddens me that you do not accept my offer, because I would truly hate for something horrible to happen to your business.” Naturally, you are getting pissed at this point and are ready to “escort” this “gentleman” out your door. The Boss then tells you, “Please calm down, Mr. Curiosity. No need to get upset. As I said, it is YOUR CHOICE to pay me or not. However, it is only fair that I tell you that the two businesses that exploded the other day chose NOT to pay me. And I truly would not want to make your business explode like theirs. But, again, that is YOUR choice. I cannot force you to pay me.”
Free Will, huh?..Ummmm… Yeah, sure… 
(strumming fingers on table)…
2 Likes
@Bluedoc im not really sure what you mean by this statement, but I don’t think you should discount free choice so quickly. While most of religion fails to stay logical, this specific bit actually does stay logical as far as I can tell.
If god created man so that there could be true love between them, free will has to exist. God COULD create man to love him, but that wouldn’t be free will. That would be tyranny. In order to achieve free love, it is logical that the love has to be given freely. I’ve mentioned something similar somewhere else but one of the categorical differences between man and beast ( according to the Bible at least) is that man has the ability to live god in the same capacity as he loves us. Animals don’t have that ability. I think this is what they mean by free will anyway.
I understand and agree with everyone here so far that have expressed frustration with the idea that if you don’t live god you burn in hell. That is tyranny and not unconditional love. That’s why I think the religions that use that fear tactic are wrong.
Again; according to the Bible, and what believers have told me for more than 40 years; their god can do exactly what you suggest (or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter) by (crudely speaking) snapping his fingers. If what you suggested is accurate: that these (fictional) genocides were required for their god to get what he wants, their god isn’t omnipotent. Which means they’ve be lying about their god, for thousands of years.
I like this example actually. It did make me consider a few things. I think this is the exact view that many religions do use. The fear tactic that if you don’t believe, you burn in hell. I’ve said it before That is logically inconsistent with a benevolent creator, so I don’t believe that hell could exist this way. I have found some religions that don’t believe in this idea of heaven and hell though that I found extremely compelling. And from what I can tell, the ideas are at least a little more logical and less hypocritical than the example you gave above.
But don’t forget, just because the Catholic view of hell is illogical doesn’t necessitate that god doesn’t exist.
Sure, but it means the Catholic god does not exist; that they have been lying to us.
1 Like
Well I don’t know. An example , which I think stays on topic, is something that every parent understands. There are certain things we want for our children, whether it’s for our benefit or theirs. The problem is, being a kid, they usually won’t want to do whatever it is that you ask them to do. So after some fighting, you have to give them some explanation as to why they have to do this thing. Usually, this explanation is incomplete or inaccurate though, because the TRUTH that exists as a result of this action is not able to be understood by the child. But that doesn’t make the truth less truthful, right?
So my belief is there are some things in the Bible that are hard for us to wrap our minds around. We can’t understand much of it fully because we are children. Even tho the logically consistent god knows and understands everything, it won’t do us any good if he just explains the truth as it is, because we can’t understand that. He has to do so in a way that we can comprehend. And from my understanding, a being that could be existing in the highest dimensions has a lot of degrees of difference between us to cover. Kind of like a human trying to explain to ant where he exists in the universe. Good luck with that one.
We’re not talking about a parent telling a child not to eat a whole bag of candy in one sitting, we’re talking about telling them “Love me back or I’ll kill you to punish you and use you as an example so your sister won’t do it”. A god that works in “mysterious ways” that we can’t understand looks no different than things happening at random, so how do you tell the difference?
Ahh yes exactly! It appears random. The debate really is “IS it random”.
That is because you and I are not omnipotent. If I was omnipotent (like the Bible, Christians, Jews, and Muslims claim), I could make them do it. Even better: I could make them want to do it.
It seems you are trying to treat god more like a person than a deity. I have no problem with that, but lets be clear: that is NOT the story that Bible and monotheists in general having been shoving down our throats our entire lives.
It seems to me that you are talking about a very different god then they are. It smells like:
Then why is it in there?
Those texts are in there clear as day.
Atheism doesn’t use a Bible or a book of text from any religion. Neither did I write the Bible myself. But I know what I read from it.
Although it’s simple that the Text is there telling people to kill homosexuals in Leviticus and non believers and pagans will be killed in the Book of Revelations. There’s also texts about “god” murdering children for no valid reason. That to me is an imaginary deity validating that this is okay to do.
So why do Christians lie and say that it’s not “endorsing” it?
I don’t buy it. I’m not convinced about the “not endorsing it” argument. Sounds like a lie to me or it’s a major lack of abductive reasoning to me.
What do you mean?
That’s what was preached at the Baptist church I once attended when my parents forced it down my throat. They slammed gay people and encouraged homophoebia. They then heavily CLAIMED that Atheists and Pagans were in bed with the “devil” & accused both of witch craft. While they have no understanding of Atheism at all and being an Atheist myself. I do not believe that deities, skyfathers/ skymothers, gods or goddesses EXIST. Because there is no EVIDENCE. None, nada, zilch.
Yes, and that’s what I was pointing out. That this deity says it’s okay to murder people “in his name” if those people “break” his little “rules”.
Killed? lol not likely. It doesn’t count when you’re immortal and have divinity. They could kill Jesus over and over. He’d just respawn. It doesn’t count.
Lets just call it for what it was. The Christian Skyfather murdered a bunch of people for breaking his rules and said he saved the world and everyone just went with it because it’s hard to argue with a mass murderer who cares little for human life. You wouldn’t argue with Adolf Hitler. He’d throw you in a gas chamber for being insubordinate.
I wouldn’t call that a sacrifice. I’d call that pointless genocide.
1 Like
I am not. I am only using the parent child analogy to help illustrate my point. I am not arguing god is human. But regardless your comment isn’t really helpful. I’m simply saying that if got is omnipotent and we are not, it’s no surprise that we can’t seem to understand any of it. Maybe what we see as a contradiction is not, just our own failure to understand.
Right; you are using a non-omnipotent object to create an analogy about an what an omnipotent object is capable of. It’s a textbook example of a false analogy. Both setups are superficially similar; but one of them does not have the property in question (omnipotence); which is exactly what it takes to make a false analogy.