Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

Why use Dawkins here? I assume you're referring to the selfish gene?

I shared Dawkins because human beings behave in a selfish manner that mirrors the Bible's teaching that we have a selfish nature (i.e., we have desires within each of us that are antithetical to self-sacrificial self-giving behavior). To quote Dawkins, “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes” (Dawkins).

 

[funkygunther]

I shared Dawkins because human beings behave in a selfish manner that mirrors the Bible's teaching that we have a selfish nature (i.e., we have desires within each of us that are antithetical to self-sacrificial self-giving behavior). To quote Dawkins, “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes” (Dawkins).

here you are misunderstanding "selfish" just like you misunderstood "races" in relation to Darwin, selfish does not mean in Dawkins quote what you think it means (human social behaviour) in your first sentence

 

[Chaplain]

here you are misunderstanding "selfish" just like you misunderstood "races" in relation to Darwin, selfish does not mean in Dawkins quote what you think it means (human social behaviour) in your first sentence

Our bodies have complex biological systems that are interconnected with each of the other systems in our bodies.

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.” (Dawkins)

 

[funkygunther]

Our bodies have complex biological systems that are interconnected with each of the other systems in our bodies.

now that quote describes human behaviour and not the selfishness of genes, he says:

gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals.

so in terms of behaviour he settles on human beings having both a selfish nature and an altruistic nature

 

[Chaplain]

so in terms of behaviour he settles on human beings having both a selfish nature and an altruistic nature

Yes, exactly what the Bible claims and what my lived experience varifies. I would like to add that even though I find common ground with Dawkins on this topic, I disagree with the logical implications of his worldview (of reducing everything to physics and chemistry):

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows or cares, DNA just is and we dance to its music.” (Dawkins)

The truth claim that the universe is a closed system of cause and effect (what Dawkins believes) is void of ultimate meaning, purpose, or justice:

"Our secular age has led many people to feel demoralised and disillusioned, alienated from nature, regarding their existence as a pointless charade in an indifferent, even hostile, universe; a meaningless three score years and ten on a remote planet wandering amid the vastness of an uncaring cosmos. Many of our social ills can be traced to the bleak world view that three hundred years of mechanistic thought have imposed on us, a worldview in which human beings are presented as irrelevant observers of nature rather than an integral part of the natural order." (Cosmologist Paul Davies)

 

[funkygunther]

The truth claim that the universe is a closed system of cause and effect (what Dawkins believes) is void of ultimate meaning, purpose, or justice:

Those are just concepts we invented. The universe carried on before we invented those concepts and will carry on after we're long dead.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Who even ever said there was purpose or meaning? I have no problem trying to live my best life knowing that it is the only one I have and that I'm not serving some greater good. Who needs these crutches?

 

[Rentahamster]

Who even ever said there was purpose or meaning? I have no problem trying to live my best life knowing that it is the only one I have and that I'm not serving some greater good. Who needs these crutches?

People who think they need an authoritarian spiritual figurehead to provide their lives with meaning without realizing that the both the meaning they seek and the figureheads they yearn to enslave themselves to are both products of their own imagination.

 

[IFireflyl]

I will never understand why some (many?) atheists so loathe that people believe in a higher power. I get that there are radicals who do terrible things under the guise of religion, but there are also radicals who do terrible things who aren't religious. Let people believe what they want to believe. Engage in civil and constructive conversation about your beliefs in a constructive manner. There is no need to attack someone for having a different belief than you.

 

[kurisu_1974]

I will never understand why some (many?) atheists so loathe that people believe in a higher power. I get that there are radicals who do terrible things under the guise of religion, but there are also radicals who do terrible things who aren't religious. Let people believe what they want to believe. Engage in civil and constructive conversation about your beliefs in a constructive manner. There is no need to attack someone for having a different belief than you.

Because while terrible things are done in the name of religion, they are never done in the name of atheism.

I think outside quoting to illustrate a point is actually a bit lame, but your comment calls for the obligatory:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” (Steven Weinberg, an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in physics)

 

[SF Kosmo]

Are you trying to debunk Jesus himself?, because his prophecies are very clear in the language, he said to some people they would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom before they reached death, or watch the stars falling from heaven and Jesus coming in the clouds with power and glory, something he said all tribes of the earth would witness before that generation passed away.

Stars falling from the sky is kind of a weird thing to believe if you live in a time where people know what stars are though, don't you think?

Like isn't it a red flag that God thought that the sky was a big tent stretched out over the land, had no concept that the earth was round, and didn't know what stars or planets were? Or like, even China?

 

[FunkMiller]

I will never understand why some (many?) atheists so loathe that people believe in a higher power. I get that there are radicals who do terrible things under the guise of religion, but there are also radicals who do terrible things who aren't religious. Let people believe what they want to believe. Engage in civil and constructive conversation about your beliefs in a constructive manner. There is no need to attack someone for having a different belief than you.

We don’t loathe you. We feel bad for you, because you live under a self delusion that can cause a great deal of harm to you, others around you, and society in general.

We can’t just let people believe what they want to believe, because with that belief comes intolerance, division and hate. It should be challenged.

And no one has ‘attacked’ anyone else. You’re using snowflake language. It’s all been pretty good natured, to be honest.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

We don’t loathe you. We feel bad for you, because you live under a self delusion that can cause a great deal of harm to you, others around you, and society in general.

We can’t just let people believe what they want to believe, because with that belief comes intolerance, division and hate. It should be challenged.

And no one has ‘attacked’ anyone else. You’re using snowflake language. It’s all been pretty good natured, to be honest.

Well said. I personally feel anger towards the religious establishment that lied to me and psychologically abused me with threats of eternal damnation (my own fault of course) when I was a small child. Oftentimes this was carried out through individuals who loved me, but I can’t blame them because they were also lied to. In the same way I can’t blame any believer for the story they’ve been handed, but we do have to treat these arguments seriously and like we’re arguing with adults. Those beliefs will be challenged, especially when they intrude onto people minding their own business. I understand why people are personally invested in their relationship with god, and they feel like when those beliefs are challenged its a personal attack, but to paraphrase a christian saying: love the believer not the belief. People are likely going to be offended, and that’s just religion working as intended to preserve itself.

 

[IFireflyl]

Because while terrible things are done in the name of religion, they are never done in the name of atheism.

I think outside quoting to illustrate a point is actually a bit lame, but your comment calls for the obligatory:

That's not a good quote to use since without God there is no objective moral standard for right and wrong. Saying religion is bad because religious people do terrible things in the name of that religion is pointless. Without religion the terrible people would still be doing terrible things. Christianity in particular isn't a violent religion. The people who commit evil, violent acts are directly opposed to what Jesus/God called them to do regardless of what they say. If someone did committed genocide in the name of atheism would that mean that we should accost atheists until the believe in God or some higher power? Certainly not. It would be ridiculous to judge the many based on the actions of a few.

We don’t loathe you. We feel bad for you, because you live under a self delusion that can cause a great deal of harm to you, others around you, and society in general.

We can’t just let people believe what they want to believe, because with that belief comes intolerance, division and hate. It should be challenged.

And no one has ‘attacked’ anyone else. You’re using snowflake language. It’s all been pretty good natured, to be honest.

As a Christian I feel bad for you for living under the self-delusion that there is no God, especially considering the consequences for your self-delusion are eternal. That doesn't mean I wish ill will towards you, or that I'll berate you for it. You have free will to decide what you want to believe is right.

Intolerance, division, and hate isn't what Christianity is about. In fact, that's the polar opposite. Anyone pushing these three things under the name of Jesus/God/Christianity doesn't know what they're talking about. They aren't reading their own Bible. That's a radical doing what they want, and trying to pervert the truth to make themselves feel empowered.

Also, name calling is a verbal attack. I didn't say it was an extreme attack, or that you're hurting me with your words. There is nothing snowflake about what I said, but once again someone has to try to throw an insult out instead of engaging in a civil and constructive manner. I'm not going to bother to continue responding to you if you keep it up. If you want to engage in civil discourse I'm happy to talk though.

 

[kurisu_1974]

without God there is no moral standard for right and wrong.

Literally stopped reading there. At least put a little thought in it man.

 

[Blade2.0]

People that keep calling it a circular argument with no one changing sides have yet to tell me where the drop in belief is coming from.

 

[InterMusketeer]

As a Christian I feel bad for you for living under the self-delusion that there is no God, especially considering the consequences for your self-delusion are eternal.

I guess this is the main issue I have with religions like Christianity. It doesn't matter if you lived a good, honest life. Ultimately you are judged on whether you believed or not. That's the wrong way to measure a person's worth.

 

[nikolino840]

It's probably even more in Poland... which is disgusting... as we are giving these church fuckers tons of money for nothing.
I don't think any religion is true. I don't think god exists. I think it's all a load of bs.

IF ANYTHING, we should believe in Sumerian or egyptian gods.
The current crap is not only super boring but also fear mongering and makes absolutely negative sense if you take an outside look at any of these stupid beliefs

Nothing stops you to believe the gods you desire i follow the neo-paganism path

 

[IFireflyl]

Literally stopped reading there. At least put a little thought in it man.

I have put a lot of thought into it, actually. What is the objective moral standard for right and wrong?

I guess this is the main issue I have with religions like Christianity. It doesn't matter if you lived a good, honest life. Ultimately you are judged on whether you believed or not. That's the wrong way to measure a person's worth.

I get what you're saying. The thing is that you're saying "good" and "honest" as if those words have some sort of value or meaning outside of there being a God. As with my above comment to kurisu_1974 , without God any definition of good/evil/honest/et cetera is subjective. What you feel is morally right can be what someone else feels is morally wrong. If we assume God is real then your concern doesn't hold up since nobody lives a "good" or "honest" life because of sin. The only person who ever did that was Jesus. That's why he was able to be a sacrifice for the sins of man. Because he was blameless.

The rest of us are not blameless. We lie, steal, cheat, hate, hurt people, act selfishly, and more. There are people who are less bad than others (e.g. sin less than others), but you can't compare yourself to someone else. You can only compare yourself to God. When you're comparing yourself to a perfect being do you really feel like you measure up? Do you think you somehow earned the right to be in a place of perfection, or that you did something to deserve a reward greater than all of the treasures this world has ever known? If you want to live apart from God that's your choice, but God is where perfection is. To be able to get there you either have to be perfect or you have to accept the gift of salvation. I don't think you'll argue that you are perfect (because we've all done stuff we know was wrong, regardless of how small we think it was), but if you can't argue that you're perfect then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect not to be let into a place of perfection.

I really appreciate the constructive response by the way. Like I said, I do understand what you're saying. I know you don't believe what I believe, and I don't expect to change your mind. That said, I do like talking about this stuff with people who are open to civil discourse.

P.S. To everyone else, I am not trying to argue that God is real. It isn't constructive for someone who believes in God and Jesus to argue with non-believers about God and try to browbeat them into admitting they are wrong. I might argue certain philosophical points (such as objective moral standards), but even then I try to do so with logical points/opinions, and by showing respect. I'm not proselytizing on here. I'm just having a discussion with people who want to engage. If anyone feels that I'm trying to shove something down their throat then they are either misunderstanding me, or I've screwed up something I have said (which is possible since I am not impervious to making mistakes). If I ever start to offend someone, please PM me and let me know what I said that was offensive.

 

[InterMusketeer]

The thing is that you're saying "good" and "honest" as if those words have some sort of value or meaning outside of there being a God.

Goodness and honesty are concepts God created and promotes to us. That's precisely why He should value them, and judge people according to them, no? If He doesn't, that seems incredibly inconsistent to me.

When you're comparing yourself to a perfect being do you really feel like you measure up?

Well, no. But since I'm imperfect by design, and put in an imperfect world... I guess I'm doing alright all things considered. This comes back to my first point. If God doesn't judge people based on their behavior, why should I care about my behavior at all? Why should I pursue goodness and honesty if the deciding factor is faith?

Do you think you somehow earned the right to be in a place of perfection

I don't know because the requirements are not known to me. What's been described to me makes no sense. But regardless, I think that if He is a kind and just God, He would not forsaken His own creation simply because they didn't believe in the right religion.

 

[IFireflyl]

Goodness and honesty are concepts God created and promotes to us. That's precisely why He should value them, and judge people according to them, no? If He doesn't, that seems incredibly inconsistent to me.

God does value goodness and honesty, and he does judge those who aren't good or honest.

Well, no. But since I'm imperfect by design, and put in an imperfect world... I guess I'm doing alright all things considered. This comes back to my first point. If God doesn't judge people based on their behavior, why should I care about my behavior at all? Why should I pursue goodness and honesty if the deciding factor is faith?

Humanity by design was perfect until sin was introduced into the world. Sin causes corruption, decay, and eventual death. God does judge people based on their behavior. The issue is that everyone deserves death based on their behavior. Because God loved us he provided a way for reconciliation. That is why Jesus died for our sins - to reconcile us with God. The only thing we need to do is trust in Jesus (believe that he was the son of God, that he lived a perfect life, that he died died for our sins, and that he rose from the dead three days later as he conquered death - and accept him as the Savior of our lives) and repent of our sins (meaning we turn away from them). By accepting the gift of salvation God is still being just because the sins we committed were covered by Jesus. Someone has to pay for the sins you commit. It's either you, which would mean eternity in Hell, separated from God, or Jesus, who already paid the price and you just have to accept it.

I don't know because the requirements are not known to me. What's been described to me makes no sense. But regardless, I think that if He is a kind and just God, He would not forsaken His own creation simply because they didn't believe in the right religion.

The requirement for Heaven is to be blameless/sinless. None of us can accomplish this on our own because we have a sin nature. That is why Jesus died on the cross. He was the sacrifice for our sins. On the cross Jesus cried out, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This was because at that moment he bore the sins of all humanity. He bore everything that was counter to God's character/nature. God will always forsake sin. He cannot tolerate it. God allowed a perfect man (Jesus) to die for the sins of mankind, and Jesus was able to rise from the dead because God accepted his substitution death for our sins. He lived as a man, died as a criminal (though he lived a perfect life), and bore the consequences for our sin. This was done so we could be reconciled (made right with) God.

We still have to accept this (free) gift though. If you reject Jesus he will tell God that he doesn't know you in the next life. God doesn't forsake people for not believing in the correct religion. Religion is a man-made concept. God forsakes those who forsake Him. If you don't want God then He isn't going to force you to live with Him in paradise. If you reject Jesus (and the free gift of salvation) in this life, things are going to get real bad in the next life. This isn't a scare tactic, although I know it sounds like it. It's the consequences for our actions. God is giving away a Get Out of Jail Free card, but everyone is free to accept it or reject it as they wish.

By the way, keep it up. You're making points that I think a lot of atheists take issue with, and I'm happy to explain what I believe, and what the Bible says. To the best of my ability anyway. I don't know everything, so it's very possible you could make a point that I wouldn't have an immediate answer to.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

I have put a lot of thought into it, actually. What is the objective moral standard for right and wrong?

Biometrics.

 

[IFireflyl]

Biometrics.

I'm going to level with you: I have no idea what this means.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

I'm going to level with you: I have no idea what this means.

It simply means that there are real measurements which can analyzed that provide results that then may be applied to adjust behavior to best manifest the broadly successful ideals of worldly and cosmological life discovered with human development.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Humanity by design was perfect until sin was introduced into the world.

My argument comes down to this: Is it my own fault that I'm imperfect or is it inevitable that I sin? If perfection is achievable, then it'd be my own fault that I'm not. If it is inevitable that I sin, then it is not mine, but God's responsibility. Not only am I His creation, everything is.

He lived as a man, died as a criminal, and bore the consequences for our sin. This was done so we could be reconciled (made right with) God.

Why? Why did any of that even have to happen when God is the one who created sin in the first place? If He doesn't like sin, He shouldn't have created it.

Most of my responses to these stories is going to be: why?

Let's take the story about Adam and Eve and how they ate the forbidden fruit and that's why we can't live in paradise... My only response is: Why? Why can't they live in paradise? Why doesn't God want that? When a child breaks the rules, do you send it away to suffer in the cold and dark? I hope not. Why did God make a forbidden fruit anyway? Is it fair to punish us for Adam and Eve's choice?

I assume you don't know why God does things the way He does. I don't think anyone does. I can't understand the choices God makes. Why should I believe in a God I can't trust or understand?

By the way, keep it up. You're making points that I think a lot of atheists take issue with, and I'm happy to explain what I believe, and what the Bible says. To the best of my ability anyway. I don't know everything, so it's very possible you could make a point that I wouldn't have an immediate answer to.

Thank you for your time and attention. I try to keep my posts concise to keep things simple for myself. I hope you don't mind.

 

[IFireflyl]

It simply means that there are real measurements which can analyzed that provide results that then may be applied to adjust behavior to best manifest the broadly successful ideals of worldly and cosmological life discovered with human development.

That isn't an objective measurement of good/bad or right/wrong though. The problem is that without a God it becomes majority/mob rule to determine what is good/bad or right/wrong. You can have the opinion that it is evil to kill someone, but another person could have the opinion that killing someone isn't evil. In fact, we've seen plenty of times throughout history where people had no qualms with killing others. Subjective morality means an ever-shifting morality based on mob rule. This is why ethical relativism exists. People who don't believe in God do not have an objective standard for morality that applies to everyone across the board. There are tribes that are still engage in cannibalism and human sacrifices. The people in those tribes do not have the same moral standards that you do (assuming that you don't also support cannibalism and human sacrifices, lol).

My argument comes down to this: Is it my own fault that I'm imperfect or is it inevitable that I sin? If perfection is achievable, then it'd be my own fault that I'm not. If it is inevitable that I sin, then it is not mine, but God's responsibility. Not only am I His creation, everything is.

God made humanity with the freedom to chose. What Adam and Eve did was not something that other humans would have fared better with. They were tempted by Satan and broke the one rule that God had given them. Before they did this they had no concept or knowledge of good and evil. Before they were created God knew that they would fail. In the same manner anyone who is wanting to have a kid knows that at some point their child is going to hurt themself or hurt someone else. It's an inevitability. God knew that there would be pain and suffering brought about by His children's own works, but He wanted to have them anyway because He knew that through the tragedy of their own making He would have children who chose to love Him. If you have a kid it isn't your responsibility every time they disobey you and hurt themself or someone else.

Perfection was always achievable. God just knew before creation that perfection wouldn't be achieved. That's why the Bible says that Jesus already existed before humanity existed. This was always the plan to save His creation.

Why? Why did any of that even have to happen when God is the one who created sin in the first place? If He doesn't like sin, He shouldn't have created it.

God didn't create sin. Sin is just a word for anything that runs contrary to God's nature. God loves. Sin hates. God is selfless. Sin is selfish. God is merciful. Sin is without mercy. God is compassionate. Sin is without compassion. Darkness doesn't exist because there is light. God's entire plan is to make the ones who follow Him perfect again. They will have perfect minds and bodies, and they will no longer be tempted by sin. He didn't do this in the first place because then there wouldn't be a choice. God wanted us to have a choice.

Let's take the story about Adam and Eve and how they ate the forbidden fruit and that's why we can't live in paradise... My only response is: Why? Why can't they live in paradise? Why doesn't God want that? When a child breaks the rules, do you send it away to suffer in the cold and dark? I hope not. Why did God make a forbidden fruit anyway? Is it fair to punish us for Adam and Eve's choice?

When a child breaks the rules the child is disciplined. God didn't send them away and abandon them. Their punishment was to no longer have a life on easy street. He clothed them and helped them, but their punishment for disobeying God was to be cast out of a place of perfection since they were tainted by sin.

I assume you don't know why God does things the way He does. I don't think anyone does. I can't understand the choices God makes. Why should I believe in a God I can't trust or understand?

I get that. I won't pretend to know that I know why God does all of the things that He does. But the Bible is a large book and explains a huge part of it. Obviously if you don't believe in God then I don't expect you to believe what the Bible says about these things, but when talking to a Christian we're only going to be able to show you what the Bible says because our entire relationship is founded on faith.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, and I won't ever try to take that right from you. If I could prove God was real and everything in the Bible was correct would you still chose to reject Him, or would you despise Him for what you perceive to be His wrongdoings? A lot of people who argue against God would reject Him because they blame Him for the evil that is in the world, or they just can't accept that they aren't in control. There's really no point in talking to those people about God because they aren't searching for truth. They're searching for an answer that says the way they're living is fine.

Thank you for your time and attention. I try to keep my posts concise to keep things simple for myself. I hope you don't mind.

I absolutely do not mind. You aren't a radical person who is hell-bent on causing trouble. These are conversations that I think are helpful. It's two sides disagreeing, and both sides giving reasons why they believe what they believe. All without resorting to nasty remarks or insults. This is the way all people should engage in discussion. Also, I know my responses are a bit on the long side. I hope that's not irritating you. You're asking questions that require examples and backstories in order for me to properly convey my thoughts. Maybe someone else would be able to be more concise with a similar response. Sadly, I am stuck with these great, sprawling essays.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

That isn't an objective measurement of good/bad or right/wrong though. The problem is that without a God it becomes majority/mob rule to determine what is good/bad or right/wrong. You can have the opinion that it is evil to kill someone, but another person could have the opinion that killing someone isn't evil. In fact, we've seen plenty of times throughout history where people had no qualms with killing others. Subjective morality means an ever-shifting morality based on mob rule. This is why ethical relativism exists. People who don't believe in God do not have an objective standard for morality that applies to everyone across the board. There are tribes that are still engage in cannibalism and human sacrifices. The people in those tribes do not have the same moral standards that you do (assuming that you don't also support cannibalism and human sacrifices, lol).

To avoid mob rule in an advanced atheist society is where the operations of law work. It's evidential not opinion. Educational standards and clear information have to be the best available at all times for it to work optimally. It's not like the wheel has to be reinvented to know it works or fire touched to know it burns.
And of course there may be laws that change based on new discoveries and as evidence is better understood. That's a sign of a healthy, growing, developing advanced lifeform.

 

[IFireflyl]

To avoid mob rule in an advanced atheist society is where the operations of law work. It's evidential not opinion. Educational standards and clear information have to be the best available at all times for it to work optimally. It's not like the wheel has to be reinvented to know it works or fire touched to know it burns.
And of course there may be laws that change based on new discoveries and as evidence is better understood. That's a sign of a healthy, growing, developing advanced lifeform.

This isn't disagreeing with what I said. It's supporting it. There is no such thing as an objective moral standard (or a universal moral standard) without God. It's completely subjective or relative. Most countries supported and/or condoned slavery at one point. It was not considered immoral. Today slavery is considered immoral by most (all?) countries. That is just one example where atheistic morality blows with the wind. Mob-rule cannot be avoided simply by having laws unless you're in a dictatorship. Even then the laws are still subject to the dictator's whims.

 

[Rentahamster]

There is no such thing as an objective moral standard (or a universal moral standard) without God.

False. Just because God says so doesn't make it objective. It just makes it subjective by God's will. You can't just define it to be "objective" by your own convenience. You have to prove that God's moral standard is the objective standard, and there is no proof of that. Furthermore, God's moral standard isn't even very good. Why would I take my moral cues from a being who promotes slavery, homophobia, sexism, and commits genocide in His own holy book.

God also permits suffering and evil in this world to this day. He has the power to stop it, yet he lets it happen. If I were an all powerful deity, and if I could, with a mere snap of my fingers, ensure that everyone in the universe is happy and healthy, it would be the moral thing for me to make it so.

To let sadness and pain continue to be a major part of my creation's daily lives when it would be so simple of me to fix it, would be the immoral thing to do. And I don't need an "objective" God to tell me that's the case.

 

[IFireflyl]

False. Just because God says so doesn't make it objective. It just makes it subjective by God's will. You can't just define it to be "objective" by your own convenience. You have to prove that God's moral standard is the objective standard, and there is no proof of that. Furthermore, God's moral standard isn't even very good. Why would I take my moral cues from a being who promotes slavery, homophobia, sexism, and commits genocide in His own holy book.

If we assume God is real then He is the creator of life, and He is the author of morality. God's morals do not fluctuate. That is an objective standard.

God doesn't promote slavery, homophobia, or sexism.

God's version of slavery was indentured servitude, and you either had to willingly go into it (for example, you could do this if you had no money, but you had a debt) or be a criminal/prisoner of war. The people indentured into servitude still had rights, and every 7 years all of them were commanded to be released. Not 7 years from the date you went into it, but every 7 years. Meaning someone could have gone into indentured servitude and a year later been released.

God says homosexuality is a sin, but He also says we're supposed to love the sinner because we're all sinners. Don't confuse that with homophobia because those are not equivalent.

God doesn't promote sexism. God established an order, but women aren't less than men. There was a reason that the first group of people Jesus appeared to after his resurrection were women. I do not dominate my wife. She is my partner. She gives advice, and a good husband should listen to wise council from his wife. She is not beneath me, although if there is a split decision between us she will be subservient so long as the decision isn't sinful or against God's word.

The genocide comment perplexes me because on the one hand you say you want God to end suffering, but when He destroys the ones causing the suffering you're acting like He is a monster. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The Canaanites worshiped their false god, Molech. They would sacrifice babies to their god. The way they did this was by building a giant, hollowed out metal statue of Molech with outstretched arms. They would light a fire under this so that the metal would get extremely hot. Drums would be played throughout the village so that when they placed babies on the outstretched arms (which were super-heated by the fire beneath them) the people wouldn't hear the screams of infants.

Beyond the fact that the Canaanites were evil, there is an argument to be made that God didn't order genocide, but was rather being hyperbolic when he said to wipe them out. The evidence people use for this is one verse after he commands the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. God immediately follows that with the command to not intermarry with them. Why would that command be there if the Canaanites were going to be utterly wiped out?

 

[Rentahamster]

The genocide comment perplexes me because on the one hand you say you want God to end suffering, but when He destroys the ones causing the suffering you're acting like He is a monster. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes I can. If I'm an all powerful deity, of course I can have my cake and eat it too. What part of infinite cosmic power precludes the idea of setting up a win-win solution? God created the cake and God can create as many additional cakes as He wants to.

God created the Canaanites and is responsible for the way they act. He can just as easily create Canaanites that aren't evil. Or he could change their hearts like he changed Pharaoh's heart. Or he could appear to them in the sky and give them a very convincing lecture about why they shouldn't be grilling babies that is 100% persuasive, like Mustafah did to Simba.

There's hundreds of easy solutions that an all powerful all wise all loving God could implement that doesn't require Him killing all of them.

 

[Rentahamster]

If we assume God is real then He is the creator of life, and He is the author of morality.

There is no strong evidence for the assumption that God is real, nor that your particular God is the one that is the creator of life, and not the god of another religion. Therefore, I have no reason to believe you that your God is the author of morality. In my personal experience and in the practice of humans across time, morality is codified into laws, and those laws in a democracy, are written by the people, for the people.

Laws coming from a religion is what happens in a theocracy, and those systems of governments don't have a very good track record relative to the democratic ones.

God's morals do not fluctuate. That is an objective standard.

They change even within the Bible itself from the Old Testament to the New Testament, so how objective is that?

 

[Rentahamster]

God doesn't promote slavery

Then why does he give the Israelites an instruction manual on how to do it properly?

God's version of slavery was indentured servitude, and you either had to willingly go into it (for example, you could do this if you had no money, but you had a debt) or be a criminal/prisoner of war.

This is supposed to be a rebuttal about how God's preferred way is actual moral? Even this is terribly immoral. Why would God permit someone to become a slave because of monetary issues? That does not sound like something Jesus would condone, given his lessons on wealth, materialism, poverty, and humility. Why would God allow for slavery for prisoners of war? That is barbaric.

The people indentured into servitude still had rights, and every 7 years all of them were commanded to be released. Not 7 years from the date you went into it, but every 7 years. Meaning someone could have gone into indentured servitude and a year later been released.

"these slaves have rights"
*goes on to describe a system where they actually don't have rights*

Stop making excuses for the slavery in the Bible.

I made a previous post on this in response to 93xfan but he didn't address my concerns, so maybe you can take a crack at it.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/80-in-america-believe-in-god.1638090/post-266326304

 

[IFireflyl]

Yes I can. If I'm an all powerful deity, of course I can have my cake and eat it too. What part of infinite cosmic power precludes the idea of setting up a win-win solution? God created the cake and God can create as many additional cakes as He wants to.

God created the Canaanites and is responsible for the way they act. He can just as easily create Canaanites that aren't evil. Or he could change their hearts like he changed Pharaoh's heart. Or he could appear to them in the sky and give them a very convincing lecture about why they shouldn't be grilling babies that is 100% persuasive, like Mustafah did to Simba.

There's hundreds of easy solutions that an all powerful all wise all loving God could implement that doesn't require Him killing all of them.

You missed the part way back where I said God wanted people who chose to love Him. That means giving people the option to not love Him. There is suffering now, but there is a judgement day that is coming for everyone. It's easy for you to play the keyboard warrior and say God doesn't know what He is doing and that you would do it better, but it's all just bluster. I don't mean that offensively either. Nobody can make a claim like that because you have no idea who God really is, or what the big picture is. God exists outside of time (at least, outside of time as we know it). He knew everything that would happen before he set it in motion. You're making claims about things you can't comprehend because you have never been in God's position.

There is no strong evidence for the assumption that God is real, nor that your particular God is the one that is the creator of life, and not the god of another religion. Therefore, I have no reason to believe you that your God is the author of morality. In my personal experience and in the practice of humans across time, morality is codified into laws, and those laws in a democracy, are written by the people, for the people.

Laws coming from a religion is what happens in a theocracy, and those systems of governments don't have a very good track record relative to the democratic ones.


They change even within the Bible itself from the Old Testament to the New Testament, so how objective is that?

I have already stated that I am not proselytizing. I'm not going to convince anyone on here that God is real, nor am I trying to. I'm engaging in civil discourse with people who want to have actual thought-provoking discussion.

I already disproved the "morality is codified into laws" argument as once upon a time there were pro-slavery laws.

God's morals do not change from the Old Testament to the new Testament.

 

[Rentahamster]

God's morals do not change from the Old Testament to the new Testament.

If that's really true, then why do I no longer have to sacrifice goats to please God? Why do I not have to fear being stoned to death for eating shrimp?

Why, instead of the many genocidal resets of humanity that God undertook in the Old Testament, does God try something different with the Jesus strategy?

Why is God so murder happy in the Old Testament and uses that to fix many problems, but not so much anymore?

 

[funkygunther]

You missed the part way back where I said God wanted people who chose to love Him. That means giving people the option to not love Him. There is suffering now, but there is a judgement day that is coming for everyone. It's easy for you to play the keyboard warrior and say God doesn't know what He is doing and that you would do it better, but it's all just bluster. I don't mean that offensively either. Nobody can make a claim like that because you have no idea who God really is, or what the big picture is. God exists outside of time (at least, outside of time as we know it). He knew everything that would happen before he set it in motion. You're making claims about things you can't comprehend because you have never been in God's position.

You both have different visions of God. If he can't make a claim that God doesn't know what he is doing how can you claim God wanted anything? Are there multiple Gods?

 

[IFireflyl]

Then why does he give the Israelites an instruction manual on how to do it properly?


This is supposed to be a rebuttal about how God's preferred way is actual moral? Even this is terribly immoral. Why would God permit someone to become a slave because of monetary issues? That does not sound like something Jesus would condone, given his lessons on wealth, materialism, poverty, and humility. Why would God allow for slavery for prisoners of war? That is barbaric.


"these slaves have rights"
*goes on to describe a system where they actually don't have rights*

Stop making excuses for the slavery in the Bible.

I made a previous post on this in response to 93xfan but he didn't address my concerns, so maybe you can take a crack at it.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/80-in-america-believe-in-god.1638090/post-266326304

You're starting to sound hostile, and I'll just say right now that I will not engage with someone who is going to be hostile or aggressive. I will only engage in peaceful discussion with this topic. It is important to me, and I won't let myself get heated in an argument and make a mistake with something I deem to be of utmost import.

Having said that, I'm not making excuses for anything. I'm not sure what you want me to respond to in regards to the slavery bit that I haven't already said. You said slaves had no rights. They did. Give me something specific and I'll see if I have a response to it. Again, I don't know everything about the Bible, but I know a bit.

If that's really true, then why do I no longer have to sacrifice goats to please God? Why do I not have to fear being stoned to death for eating shrimp?

Why, instead of the many genocidal resets of humanity that God undertook in the Old Testament, does God try something different with the Jesus strategy?

Why is God so murder happy in the Old Testament and uses that to fix many problems, but not so much anymore?

The sacrificing of animals and the kosher diet had nothing to do with morality. The laws were not just about morality, but also about protecting the Israelites. The sacrifices were made because it showed that for sin had to be paid with blood. Jesus fulfilled this when he became the final sacrifice for our sins.

The food laws were to make the Israelites distinct from other nations. This was unnecessary after Jesus came. When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled the Old Testament law. In the New Testament God tells Paul to eat non-Kosher food and Paul tells Him he won't eat it because it is impure. God tells Paul not to call something impure which God has made clean.

 

[93xfan]

Then why does he give the Israelites an instruction manual on how to do it properly?


This is supposed to be a rebuttal about how God's preferred way is actual moral? Even this is terribly immoral. Why would God permit someone to become a slave because of monetary issues? That does not sound like something Jesus would condone, given his lessons on wealth, materialism, poverty, and humility. Why would God allow for slavery for prisoners of war? That is barbaric.


"these slaves have rights"
*goes on to describe a system where they actually don't have rights*

Stop making excuses for the slavery in the Bible.

I made a previous post on this in response to 93xfan but he didn't address my concerns, so maybe you can take a crack at it.

http://[URL]https://www.neogaf.com/threads/80-in-america-believe-in-god.1638090/post-266326304

[/URL]

Slavery was a thing back then, as terrible as it was.

God showed mercy with it, where I’m sure many other societies had none. This was before God showed us so much more of his nature and blew us away with the mercies of His so dying on the cross.

I can make guesses as to why it existed and was treated as it was, but given all that God has done for humanity and the great love he has shown us, I’m giving Him the benefit of the doubt. Every time.

 

[IFireflyl]

You both have different visions of God. If he can't make a claim that God doesn't know what he is doing how can you claim God wanted anything? Are there multiple Gods?

As I said previously, any Christian claiming God wants X can only point to the Bible. I'm saying what God wanted based on the Bible which is the inspired Word of God. He's talking in hypotheticals about something he doesn't believe in. I just said he can't possibly fathom what it would be like to be in that position, so anything he says is purely bluster. If I made a claim like that it'd be all talk as well.

 

[funkygunther]

As I said previously, any Christian claiming God wants X can only point to the Bible. I'm saying what God wanted based on the Bible which is the inspired Word of God. He's talking in hypotheticals about something he doesn't believe in. I just said he can't possibly fathom what it would be like to be in that position, so anything he says is purely bluster. If I made a claim like that it'd be all talk as well.

What do you mean by "inspired word of God?"

If you mean people were inspired by God to write it then that goes for him too.

 

[kurisu_1974]

So how does this "objective good and evil" work for people before or outside Christianity? It does not matter, because "objective good and evil" does not exist. It developped from culture and societies, maybe influenced by early religions, but it's not static in time or even place. You are just aping absolutes that you have been told or somehow irrationally believe, but there's zero evidence for any of your claims.

Also why "create" this "objective evil" in the first place? To fuck with us? And we worship this prankster because....?

As I said previously, any Christian claiming God wants X can only point to the Bible. I'm saying what God wanted based on the Bible which is the inspired Word of God.

We've already discussed how circular reasoning is not really that smart.

 

[Rentahamster]

You're starting to sound hostile, and I'll just say right now that I will not engage with someone who is going to be hostile or aggressive. I will only engage in peaceful discussion with this topic. It is important to me, and I won't let myself get heated in an argument and make a mistake with something I deem to be of utmost import.

Having said that, I'm not making excuses for anything. I'm not sure what you want me to respond to in regards to the slavery bit that I haven't already said. You said slaves had no rights. They did. Give me something specific and I'll see if I have a response to it. Again, I don't know everything about the Bible, but I know a bit.

I am actually not being hostile. I did not use any bad words, or unnecessary capitalization, or excessive exclamation points, or used any words that belittled your character. Why do you think I sound hostile? I am laying out my case in a very calm and constructed manner, so please read it in that style of voice please.

Yes, you are making excuses for slavery. I point out that God gave the Israelites an instruction manual for slavery. He gave them rules for how to enslave other Jews. He gave them different rules on how to enslave non-Jews. He gave them rules on how to enslave their prisoners of war and take their women as prizes.

I point out that God condones slavery in the Bible, and the best you can do is make excuses on how it wasn't so bad.

A perfect God wouldn't allow slavery in any form.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

How hard is it for God, in his infinite power and infinite time, to just add one more. "You shall not own another human being as property because all are equal under the eyes of your creator". Why couldn't He do that? Is that specific enough?

 

[IFireflyl]

So how does this "objective good and evil" work for people before or outside Christianity? It does not matter, because "objective good & evil" does not exist. It developped from culture and societies, maybe influenced by early religions, but it's not static in time or even place. You are just aping absolutes that you have been told or somehow irrationally believe, but there's zer evidence for any of your claims.

Also why "create" this "objective evil" in the first place? To fuck with us? And we worship this prankster because....?



We've already discussed how circular reasoning is not really that smart.

I'm done replying to you. I've said multiple times that I'm not here to be argumentative or insulting, and that's all you're doing.

I am actually not being hostile. I did not use any bad words, or unnecessary capitalization, or excessive exclamation points, or used any words that belittled your character. Why do you think I sound hostile? I am laying out my case in a very calm and constructed manner, so please read it in that style of voice please.

Yes, you are making excuses for slavery. I point out that God gave the Israelites an instruction manual for slavery. He gave them rules for how to enslave other Jews. He gave them different rules on how to enslave non-Jews. He gave them rules on how to enslave their prisoners of war and take their women as prizes.

I point out that God condones slavery in the Bible, and the best you can do is make excuses on how it wasn't so bad.

A perfect God wouldn't allow slavery in any form.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

How hard is it for God, in his infinite power and infinite time, to just add one more. "You shall not own another human being as property because all are equal under the eyes of your creator". Why couldn't He do that? Is that specific enough?

Accusing me of making excuses for slavery is the hostility. I'm telling you what the Bible says. I am not excusing anything.

I have already explained this: slavery was indentured servitude, and it was intended for criminals/prisoners of war and people who voluntarily went into indentured servitude, usually to pay off a debt. Once you entered into indentured servitude it lasted no more than 7 years, and any debt owed was completely wiped clean. That is NOT the same thing as slavery. We do that now. Criminals are given jobs (such as cleaning up trash on roadways). To call that slavery is silly. These "slaves" had to be given the same holidays and such as non-slaves, and if they were abused they were immediately freed. You couldn't just beat them for not working hard enough like what happened to black slaves in the U.S. and many other countries just a few centuries ago.

What do you mean by "inspired word of God?"

If you mean people were inspired by God to write it then that goes for him too.

Man wrote what God had then write. When referring to scripture "inspired" means "God-breathed". It means the Bible is God's Word even though man penned it.

 

[Rentahamster]

Accusing me of making excuses for slavery is the hostility. I'm telling you what the Bible says. I am not excusing anything.

That is not me being hostile. That is me telling you what you are doing. Please don't take it personally. You are telling me your interpretation of what the Bible says, and I'm telling you the Bible says how to conduct slavery with actual quotes from the Bible. I'll even show you.

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...

www.biblegateway.com

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Anyone who beats their slave must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result. That means you can beat your slave as much as you want, as long as the slave recovers after a day or two. Why? Because the slave is their property. What is it called when one human owns another human as property? That's called slavery. And the Bible condones it.

A perfect God wouldn't allow slavery in any form.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

How hard is it for God, in his infinite power and infinite time, to just add one more. "You shall not own another human being as property because all are equal under the eyes of your creator". Why couldn't He do that? Is that specific enough?

 

[FunkMiller]

Man wrote what God had then write. When referring to scripture "inspired" means "God-breathed". It means the Bible is God's Word even though man penned it.

Tell you what, I’ll also ask you the question I’ve tried with the other Christians in this thread, that they’ve all ignored. Let’s see if you can do any better:

Why is your god correct and true, and the other gods worshipped on this planet today are false and wrong?

They all contradict each other, so can’t all be right.

So, why is your Christian god the right one? Why not Hindu? Buddhist? Sikhism? Shinto? Why is his ‘word‘ right, and theirs not?

 

[kurisu_1974]

I'm done replying to you. I've said multiple times that I'm not here to be argumentative or insulting, and that's all you're doing.

I don't see any personal insults, maybe some strongly worded argumentation against what I think are delusional, fantastical claims. But I am attacking the ideas, not you. I feel this is just your standard cop-out for when it gets too hot.

 

[kurisu_1974]

That is not me being hostile. That is me telling you what you are doing. Please don't take it personally. You are telling me your interpretation of what the Bible says, and I'm telling you the Bible says how to conduct slavery with actual quotes from the Bible. I'll even show you.

http://[URL]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 21&version=NIV

[/URL]

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Anyone who beats their slave must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result. That means you can beat your slave as much as you want, as long as the slave recovers after a day or two. Why? Because the slave is their property. What is it called when one human owns another human as property? That's called slavery. And the Bible condones it.

A perfect God wouldn't allow slavery in any form.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

How hard is it for God, in his infinite power and infinite time, to just add one more. "You shall not own another human being as property because all are equal under the eyes of your creator". Why couldn't He do that? Is that specific enough?

There's even New Testament passages that were used to justify slavery as recent as the 19th century.

Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

 

[Rentahamster]

Slavery was a thing back then, as terrible as it was.

It was, "a thing"? Is that supposed to lessen the severity of it? Can God not do something about a terrible injustice if it's relegated to "a thing" status?

God showed mercy with it, where I’m sure many other societies had none.

How sure are you, and what are you basing this knowledge off of? How did God show His mercy? By explaining to the Israelites how to properly enslave their conquered enemies? I'm pretty sure He can do better than that.

This was before God showed us so much more of his nature and blew us away with the mercies of His so dying on the cross.

Blood sacrificing Himself to Himself isn't that mind blowing, to be honest. How merciful is it for an infinitely powerful being to let His avatar die and call it amazing?

I can make guesses as to why it existed and was treated as it was, but given all that God has done for humanity and the great love he has shown us, I’m giving Him the benefit of the doubt. Every time.

All that He has done for humanity? Like create us knowing that He designed us to fail Him? And then genociding a bunch of us for actions that He created us to do? And then doing it again? God is not batting very high.

 

[funkygunther]

Man wrote what God had then write. When referring to scripture "inspired" means "God-breathed". It means the Bible is God's Word even though man penned it.

Are these men as infallible as God?

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

This isn't disagreeing with what I said. It's supporting it. There is no such thing as an objective moral standard (or a universal moral standard) without God. It's completely subjective or relative. Most countries supported and/or condoned slavery at one point. It was not considered immoral. Today slavery is considered immoral by most (all?) countries. That is just one example where atheistic morality blows with the wind. Mob-rule cannot be avoided simply by having laws unless you're in a dictatorship. Even then the laws are still subject to the dictator's whims.

Your made up God and the lore you LARP with it is has no objective moral standard. It's just a fiction used to establish beneficial discoveries in human relations without having to explain the details to those that can't understand the interplay of complex ideas.
What you call God is just a fiction in your head: a placeholder that you use to validate your limited world view and prejudice about reality without having the difficulty of exploring the nature of it. Which is fine, as long as you accept your lazy ignorance and don't push your personal ultimate view for your mundane life as the ultimate truth.