"...Except when my God is involved"

[Woland]

Dear Christians,

Do the attitudes summarized below seem familiar to you?

I'm just curious if you're all conscious that this is what many of us non-religionists observe of your way of thinking.

"Killing people (including children) and genocide are immoral deeds, except when ordered or done by my God."
"Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing can be eternal, except my God."
"I think it's immoral for someone else to be held accountable for my transgressions, except when the situation involves my God."
"I think slavery is wrong, except when it is condoned by my God."
"I think it's wrong to torture anyone, except it's perfectly fine for my God to torture scores of people eternally without any chance of redemption." (Note: does not apply to the Christians who have the decency to arbitrarily disregard the verses about damnation)
"I think it's wrong to punish people for the sins of their parents/relatives/ancestors, except when the situation involves my God."

I could go on, but this should suffice.

Does any of you deny that the examples above are representative of his/her attitude?

If so, please explain yourselves.

Woland

[Noman Peopled]

*chirp*
*chirp*
*chirp*

[Jessie]

*tumbleweed blows by*

[JL]

Bump !

C'mon xtians, do you agree or not agree to OP's statements?

[plethora]

bm'ed

[wheels5894]

I think this is going to be dead and not get much by way of replies. It is better as a 'no comment' as lawyers would say.,

[Woland]

As expected, Christians are enjoying their right to remain silent and deluded.

Woland

[jynnan tonnix]

well, the site has been down for a while...maybe someone will still tackle it.

[kindred]

BMed. Hope someone replies to this(with honesty and goes I don't know why though).

[thatguy]

Dear Christians,

Do the attitudes summarized below seem familiar to you?

I'm just curious if you're all conscious that this is what many of us non-religionists observe of your way of thinking.

"Killing people (including children) and genocide are immoral deeds, except when ordered or done by my God."
"Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing can be eternal, except my God."
"I think it's immoral for someone else to be held accountable for my transgressions, except when the situation involves my God."
"I think slavery is wrong, except when it is condoned by my God."
"I think it's wrong to torture anyone, except it's perfectly fine for my God to torture scores of people eternally without any chance of redemption." (Note: does not apply to the Christians who have the decency to arbitrarily disregard the verses about damnation)
"I think it's wrong to punish people for the sins of their parents/relatives/ancestors, except when the situation involves my God."

I could go on, but this should suffice.

Does any of you deny that the examples above are representative of his/her attitude?

If so, please explain yourselves.

Woland

I've got 18 years of hard fundy indoctrination under my belt. Here's how a Christian might reply:


The people killed by God in the Bible were punished for their sins. No one is truely innocent in God's eyes.
Any young children that were kills would just have gone to heaven, so it's acceptable.

God is the very thing that allows the universe to exist. There can be nothing without him. Even science proves the universe has a beginning, therefore, my God must exist.

Again, God is the perfect judge of morality. It's his holy law that we live under.

They choose to live without God, so by sending them to hell, he is giving them what they deserve. Plus, hell exists for the same reason that prisons exist here. People are wicked in the sight of God and must be punished.

The sins of the parents can be transfered down the family line. God is the judge of who must bear the punishment.

[Noman Peopled]

There's a short story by Lem in which a missionary to an extremely altruistic alien species keeps rambling on about martyrs and how becoming one is the greatest achievement in this life. They're converted and start skinning him alive on the spot. Basically, they're sacrificing eternal life in heaven to help him achieve his.

So yes, why wouldn't it be okay to kill people (at least those who're heaven-bound)? Why wouldn't any christian want someone else to die immediately if they're in a "state of grace" in order to preclude the possibility they fall away from it and wind up in hell?
Sure, there's a rule against killing even heaven-bound people. But it's again okay to do if you're god and not if you're people.



Thatguy merely rephrased and/or recontextualized the special pleading Woland illustrated. (With full knowledge too, I'd wager Good thing the first sentence was bolded.)

[Divon]

If I were a christian, I would simply answer your question about God killing people by the thousands; "It is not for us to question how God gets his kicks".

[Noman Peopled]

Which is also special pleading

[kin hell]

Great OP Woland

[voodoo child]

Christians cannot admit their own shortcomings why would they admit their god has any?
Bait set.  

[Wootah]

Bump. I can't wai .... oh ... hey

Woland I agree with your assessment. When my God slays you it's good, when your's does it it's bad. But you commit intellectual suicide (you see, God didn't even need to kill you) by making a caricature of a moral philosophy whereas a Christian does expend a lot of energy understanding God in the bible and our relationship to God and each other.

At the end of the day we can discuss the examples you wish to cite from the Bible and we can discuss hypothetical moral dilemmas where good people do bad things and I think we can understand why God does bad things at times and why God chooses to work within the reality that is created rather than just fix things from those examples.

As for your retort, 'what about islam', trust me I can hear you thinking it. There are many other reasons to doubt Islam that one can be assured that Allah does not exist as God.

[Sashka]

^...And?

[Sashka]

Bait set.   

[Woland]

Hello Wootah

At the end of the day we can discuss the examples you wish to cite from the Bible and we can discuss hypothetical moral dilemmas where good people do bad things and I think we can understand why God does bad things at times and why God chooses to work within the reality that is created rather than just fix things from those examples.

1. You said repeatedly that there was no such thing as a good person.
2. You just said that your omnigood God does bad things.
3. An omnipotent being has no need to compromise and do "bad things" in any circumstance.
4. God doesn't work with the reality that is created - he created the reality and has full dominion over it.

In other words, pure sophistry and nonsense.

Anything else?

As for your retort, 'what about islam', trust me I can hear you thinking it. There are many other reasons to doubt Islam that one can be assured that Allah does not exist as God.

And yet the Muslims mindlessly believe, just as the Christians do, that their own favorite nonsensical barbaric backwards violent (and loving and merciful, let us not forget) deity in the sky exists.
Muslims point out valid flaws in Christian belief, Christians point out valid flaws in Islamic belief, but none of them realize that they're all deluded and limited by their own very small boxes.

[Noman Peopled]

As for your retort, 'what about islam', trust me I can hear you thinking it. There are many other reasons to doubt Islam that one can be assured that Allah does not exist as God.

What about the seven thousand (figures may be pulled out of my ass) other religions and gods?

When my God slays you it's good, when your's does it it's bad. But you commit intellectual suicide (you see, God didn't even need to kill you) by making a caricature of a moral philosophy whereas a Christian does expend a lot of energy understanding God in the bible and our relationship to God and each other.

I note that you in no way explain how it's a caricature and/or how trying to understand a specific god is an undertaking that needs to be taken seriously. "While you merely mock the gods of the pantheon, I've taken a great effort to understand them." Relevance?

[thatguy]

Relevance?

Remember, he's a Christian. Don't expect him to make sense. He's delusional.

There are many other reasons to doubt Islam that one can be assured that Allah does not exist as God.

Yes, there are many reasons to doubt Islam, and one can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Islam is false. But the same applied to Christianity.
Now, since you made the claim that Islam is surely false, please show why you say this?

After you do this, I'll change the arguement slightly to disprove Christianity as well.

[Noman Peopled]

After you do this, I'll change the arguement slightly to disprove Christianity as well.

I must admit, I would be much more eager to hear an asessment of the OP. Woland may have been satirical and/or simplistic in his intent, or he may not have been. His point, however, has not yet been adressed.
If the first post is indeed a caricature, then Wootah has correctly identified a rhetorical figure, nothing more.

[Woland]

After you do this, I'll change the arguement slightly to disprove Christianity as well.

I must admit, I would be much more eager to hear an asessment of the OP. Woland may have been satirical and/or simplistic in his intent, or he may not have been. His point, however, has not yet been adressed.
If the first post is indeed a caricature, then Wootah has correctly identified a rhetorical figure, nothing more.

It wasn't at all a caricature, as you can see by the fact that Wootah has not denied any of the example attitudes that I wrote down. Scores of Christians think just as he does.

"Whatever my God can or could be said to have done, it's the definition of perfect morality. Therefore, all sorts of despicable deeds are alright in any context where my God or his commands are involved."

This is one of the thing that disgusts me the most about religions. Religionists overwhelmingly refuse, when confronted by obvious evil deeds of their barbaric deities (who also happen to have been made up by ignorant barbaric men), to condemn these. What's more, religionists each have a threshold of evil they are ready to accept from their deity. This seems to depend more on their upbringing (YEC vs. Universalist, etc.). After this point, they will use symbolics etc. excuses - pure denial.

To illustrate this better, imagine that you find a Christian who, like most Christians, is astoundingly ignorant of the scriptures he proclaims to come from God. He, like most Christians, has never read even a significant fraction of the Bible. You ask him to unconditionally condemn killing or seriously injuring babies.

He does so.

Then you show him a passage where God genocides innumerable babies (like the flood, for example) who have never and who could never have done anything wrong.

Guess what happens. Instead of letting go of his delusion and saying that the deed is unacceptable, the Christian will either enter denial mode (symbolism! metaphor! didn't happen! wasn't God!), or, as is the case with Wootah who is a literalist, they will straight up defend the atrocity without even blinking (the babies deserved it!). Many Christians will make space for evil in their morality if they learn that their God is evil, instead of recognizing that such a God would never be worthy of worship, and is obviously man-made.

Woland

[Noman Peopled]

I am aware of all of that (you don't have to be here long to see it play out); my point was that utterly regardless of what your OP was or wasn't intended to be, Wootah didn't adress it. He merely called it a caricature.

Woland: "Theists use special pleading."
Wootah: "That's not accurate."
The end?

[Wootah]

Yes, there are many reasons to doubt Islam, and one can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Islam is false. But the same applied to Christianity.
Now, since you made the claim that Islam is surely false, please show why you say this?

The essence of the proof that Islam is false is that Mohammad's behavior in any other context would be seen for what it is - just a tyrant. If you look at his life in a calm rational fashion not just the immorality but the blatant narcissism is evident. (As a simple example we need look no further than his desire for his cousin's wife and the next day Allah telling him that he approves.) It is akin to picking your favorite historical figure: julius ceasar, napoleon, alexander the great, etc and realizing that a tribal group has elevated and continues to elevate a historical figure.  The tragedy in a modern context is the unfortunate position of a billion people that cannot disconnect God and Mohammad. In reality to that last statement it is my guess that the vast majority are unable to leave Islam due to the abnormal level of control in their lives.

[Wootah]

I am aware of all of that (you don't have to be here long to see it play out); my point was that utterly regardless of what your OP was or wasn't intended to be, Wootah didn't adress it. He merely called it a caricature.

Woland: "Theists use special pleading."
Wootah: "That's not accurate."
The end?

Well said. I suspect that's why there isn't much traction in this direction of inquiry.

[Noman Peopled]

The essence of the proof that Islam is false is that Mohammad's behavior in any other context would be seen for what it is - just a tyrant. If you look at his life in a calm rational fashion not just the immorality but the blatant narcissism is evident. (As a simple example we need look no further than his desire for his cousin's wife and the next day Allah telling him that he approves.)

As opposed to biblical leaders commiting genocide in the name of god throughout the OT? Blood sacrifices? Mose's mass murder of his own people?
Also, how does being morally repulsive make any religious leader wrong?

Well said. I suspect that's why there isn't much traction in this direction of inquiry.

I don't seem to have made myself clear enough. I agree with Woland that special pleading can be observed in abundance when disecting theists' arguments. He has provided examples that we're all familiar with, and he and I both could easily direct you towards many instances of special pleading on this forum alone.
I would like to see you dispute his premises in a more detailed way than merely claiming them a misrepresentation and leaving it at that. Unless you (or someone) challenges them in a way that can be meaningfully responded to, there will indeed be no traction.

//edit: Finally fixed the damn quotes.

[Wootah]

The essence of the proof that Islam is false is that Mohammad's behavior in any other context would be seen for what it is - just a tyrant. If you look at his life in a calm rational fashion not just the immorality but the blatant narcissism is evident. (As a simple example we need look no further than his desire for his cousin's wife and the next day Allah telling him that he approves.)

As opposed to biblical leaders commiting genocide in the name of god throughout the OT? Blood sacrifices? Mose's mass murder of his own people?
Also, how does being morally repulsive make any religious leader wrong?

Any person in the Bible, other than Jesus, is just another fallible human being. It's more the fact that his motives are so transparent.
- when he had no power the Jews and Christians were his 'buddies', when he had power they were enemies
- when he wanted something Allah would come in a vision and grant it
- the list goes on

[Noman Peopled]

Any person in the Bible, other than Jesus, is just another fallible human being. It's more the fact that his motives are so transparent.
- when he had no power the Jews and Christians were his 'buddies', when he had power they were enemies
- when he wanted something Allah would come in a vision and grant it
- the list goes on

As opposed to the scores of political and economical decisions in the bible? Like, it's the most mundane thing in the world to kill someone and take their land and ressources. Quite a huge part of the bible is about reglementing how people live together, which is what any law does.

And again, the motives, their transparance, and his fallibility do not mean Mohammed wasn't a prophet unless they don't jive with an already existing god concept. I'm sure that the frequent visitations of Mo would in fact be used as an argument for his closer connection to god by muslims.
There are scores of fictitious gods who are mischievous, imperfect, and/or downright evil. Discarding them as nonexistent because that's not what you think gods are like is a fallacy.