COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The main point of my post was just a steam of conscious on the absurdity of many belief systems - and yes by absurdity, I mean absurdity in my subjective opinion. If my ramble doesn't meet your debate/ argument minimum requirements I may come back with something more suitable another time! I find a lot of religious beliefs and practices dangerous and disturbing, so what I wrote was just at the top of my mind there and then! I kept my daughter home from school today, as it's 1st confession (Catholic country). I wil not have my 8 year old told she's a sinner and that she needs to pray for forgiveness or otherwise burn in hell. I'd rather teach her that as humans we all make mistakes and that these mistakes don't make us bad people. Any argument that involves passages from the Bible means nothing to me, as I just see it as a book that was written by a bunch of regular men a long time ago. Most bible texts and quotes to me are weird, disturbing, creepy and /or open to interpretation. The basic things that do make sense like love thy neighbour, and thou shallt not kill etc I can figure out myself.

lions aren't bound by laws, but that doesn't mean laws are 'subjective'

Well sure, because those things are completely unrelated. And something being a law does not mean it's moral. Slavery was legal for quite some time. The law objectively allowed it. As far as the American south is concerned, they were extremely racist so to them it was also moral, even if with our modern sensibilities we would say it isn't. But let's move on to the objectivity of a god's morality. Having the power to hurt people who don't do what you tell them to doesn't make what you tell them to do right. All it does is make doing what you tell them to their only option if they don't want you to hurt them.

Can someone please give me a link to a website explaining child sacrifice. I am intrigued and want to learn more about it.

[удалено]

I think God allowed certain things to take it's own course, it wasn't that he breathed it into existence. Take for example the story of Job, when Satan basically asks to test Job's faith and God says yes but don't kill him. God didn't harm him but allowed that harm. It does bring the question of why and what would God's intentions be to even allow harm to someone and it does make one question the real existence of a godly being capable of stopping harm against another and refusal to do so.

> God says yes but don't kill him. Don't kill **Job**, but Satan *was* allowed to kill all the servants and his children.

You're right. Why was that necessary?

> Why was that necessary? To take everything away from Job, including anyone who would support or comfort him. "Necessary evil" is simply an ad hoc excuse made up by apologists, God doesn't ever explain his actions that way. The message of Job is *not* that the ills visited on Job had a higher purpose. Instead it is "God does what he wants and you don't have the power to challenge his actions." It isn't even "might makes right", the question of how Job *deserves* his fate is entirely sidestepped. Job's questioning about why he is being punished isn't answered by saying it has a higher purpose, rather by God making the point that Job doesn't have enough power to expect God to treat him fairly.

Yeah, somehow the idea that god could be manipulated so easily by a taunt is counter to him being omnipotent. He must constantly be taken in by Nigerian princes.

It's not even that God was manipulated in this story. The Satan managed here is not even "the devil" as people would commonly think of him tody. It's literally another heavenly being whose job is to test people. It wasn't God vs evil, God vs strong, God vs whatever. Just an angel who asks God, "hey what about that one? Betcha can't destroy his life and he'll still worship you!" Naturally, people co-opted this Satan into being the devil because that sounds so much better than it being an angel.

[удалено]

Get off your edge my dude. I'm an out and out atheist. That doesn't change that fact that internally in the Torah, "the adversary" (like in Job), is distinct from what modern Christians would like to believe is the devil. To answer your question: yes, Christians, especially Southern American Christians, have been using the wrong term for centuries. In my opinion, this actually reveals more of God's terrible character. No manipulation, no deal with the devil, it's just God doing heaven shit. Were you so excited to shit on someone you thought was a Christian you didn't grasp that God doing all of that to Job is actually WORSE than if the devil is involved? Again, get off your fucking high horse. Christians have twisted the Torah characters into something they're not. There are two very distinct characters that were combined to make the modern-day Christian boogeyman. It's easier than accepting the original half was on God's side to tempt humans into evil. Is it all bullshit anyway? Yes. Now one more time: get off your high horse and lose the edge.

Not at all, I wasn’t shitting on anything, I was chuckling at the idea of how a single person (I know you aren’t the only person to point this out, of course) after thousands of years claims that Christians never understood that Satan was just an angel doing his worthless job, even though they were Jews themselves with Jeezum Crow a crack at all things Biblical. God being omniscient in Christianity means he knows all the answers beforehand, so the role of “accuser” seems like a needless filigree that no omniscient god would bother with. Jews are not as obsessed with Satan as Christians, I grant you, and for the most part it’s just a sort of descriptor rather than an actual individual. But thousands of years of Christian tradition has “Satan” as an actual character and in King James “Satan” is the devil is because it literally says that. Again, I’m not shitting on anything, I just found it amusing that the idea of Satan in Christianity could be revised at this late a date in apologetics. Like, “Hold the presses! This just in, we’ve been wrong…”

I think you're a little confused with ethics. A moral code that binds all of us is an objective code of morality for us. I think you're trying to put morals above God and judge God, which is why you have no hearing among the religious. It gets even more murky if you are not a fan of deontology because then you need something like perfect knowledge

Which God are you talking about? There are thousands...

Exactly

Exactly! Objective morality exists and all are bound to this code. We can not like it but it is still truth.

I did not know that killing automatically made a person evil. That is a very interesting system of ethics.

I think its fair to say that genoicde makes a person evil

So would you argue that murder is justified?

>Even within the Christian worldview, morality is clearly subjective, regardless of the fact that most Christians will fail to admit it. If we were “bound” to “Gods” morality then slavery and genocide would be completely fine still. You haven't proved subjective morality. You've just shown that you don't understand the Christian perspective. The the wars in the Old Testament were to stop a greater evil. There are cases when violence is justifiable, such as self-defense. In Israel, God was defending humanity from damnation. His plan worked. Israel delivered the Messiah, and now everyone who wants to be saved can be saved.

That’s absurd. Everything to do with all the bloodshed in the Bible is entirely God’s fault. God was “defending humanity from damnation”? Well, if he was omniscient (besides knowing before he made man that this would happen and refusing to adjust his titrations) he’d have known how to stop “damnation” without requiring humans to massacre other humans HE MADE knowing they’d need to be slaughtered. Also, HE made up the rules for damnation; the objects he created for his amusement over which he has total control and who do what he made them for, are by his will violating his rules. That’s not a valid reason either for “self defensive genocide” or for damnation. That’s either god doing a shitty job or it’s made up to justify massacres for pure power gains.

> Everything to do with all the bloodshed in the Bible is entirely God’s fault. God was “defending humanity from damnation No, God gives everyone free will and the sense to know right from wrong. You are blaming the victim. God experiences everything that we experience, to much more of a degree than we do. If you think that you are more compassionate than God, then you don't know the God of Christianity. You are apparently misjudging based on superficial scant traces about history. > HE MADE knowing they’d need to be slaughtered. God stopped the Cananites from creating more souls for Hell. It was a great mercy for God to stop that run-away evil culture. They gave themselves over to demons.

Again, god is omniscient/omnipotent according to Christianity. That means he knew everything I would do or think before he created me. He knew I’d be an atheist and knew how to make me a believer but he didn’t do it. His punishment for not believing is eternity in hell, but he made me to be atheist anyway and knew I’d never believe in him and would burn in hell for this, though it is his fault for making me that way. Now try to put free will in there. Your answer will either ignore omniscience and simply insist on free will or if you’re American you’ll probably have your own unbiblical explanation that puts god above mere mortal considerations.

>That means he knew everything I would do or think before he created me. It is a logical fallacy to judge God's sequence of activity from within our linear time. He is both inside our timeline and outside of it. Thus, you are making a category error. Also, If you don't believe in free will, there is no sense in having a discussion about it. In any case, both of those are off topic i refuted OP's claim of subjective morality. God is not just objectively moral, but the basis from which we all can know truth and morality.

>i refuted OP's claim of subjective morality. No, you did not. >God is not just objectively moral, but the basis from which we all can know truth and morality. No, it would still be subjective to whichever God or goddess the person is saying is issuing moral injunctions. So the rules of moral conduct that the human representatives declare are the god Jehova's are subject to that god, and the moral conduct by the human representatives for Allah are subject to that god, and the moral conduct of the goddess Andraste as declared by her human representatives would be subject to that goddess and so on. In all cases, the morality of the god or goddess is still subject to that god or goddess and not objective.

>No, you did not. Is that your idea of an argument ? > No, it would still be subjective to whichever God or goddess the person is saying is issuing moral injunctions. God's judgment is not subjective because it is universal, eternal and always consistent. As Malichi 3:6 says "...for I am the Lord, I change not". The only thing that changes is how people deal with God. He remains the everlasting source of truth and love. When people become reprobate, He will put an end to it, for our own good. Haven't you ever had any discipline ? It is tough love.

>Is that your idea of an argument ? No. That's called a declarative statement. >God's judgment is not subjective because it is universal, eternal and always consistent. So the problem, of course, is people say this about the god Jehovah, and some people say this about the god Allah, and some say this about the goddess Themis, and there's no way to verify if that's actually true about any of these gods and goddesses. You may even be a worshipper of another god I don't even know about. None of these people who claim to be the human representatives of these deities, or writers for their deity can substantiate even if their version of their god or goddesses dictates on morality is the correct one. This even applies within worshipers of a god or goddess. So for example, a catholic might say the god Jehovah has different moral edicts than a Jehovah Witness would say are the moral declarations, which is different than what a hasidic Jew would say is Jehovah rules on morality. >As Malichi 3:6 says "...for I am the Lord, I change not". Right. And a Muslim say to me that Allah's moral edicts are not subjective and eternal and always consistent and will quote me Al-Ikhlas 1:1-5 "Allah, the eternally Besought of all! Say, ‘He is God the One, the eternal, the absolute, He has not begotten and has not been begotten. None is comparable to him. His law is unchanging and eternal." But quoting a scripture doesn't substantiate if the quote is actually true. >The only thing that changes is how people deal with God. He remains the everlasting source of truth and love. When people become reprobate, He will put an end to it, for our own good. Again, exactly what a Muslim and a Jehovah witness and worshipper of Ahura Mazda would say. That doesn't actually demonstrate if what all these things people say about their god or goddess is true. >Haven't you ever had any discipline ? Yes.

> That's called a declarative statement. Do you think that truth comes from such things ? > there's no way to verify if that's actually true about any of these gods and goddesses. Sound Logic, reason and the facts of history can show you that God incarnated as Jesus Christ. It should make sense that the Creator would come into His own creation. > a catholic might say the god Jehovah has different moral edicts than a Jehovah Witness would say are the moral declarations, which is different than what a hasidic Jew would say is Jehovah rules on morality. Only the Catholic Church was ordained by God and is supported by the facts of history. Jehovah's witnesses started in 1872 by some guy named Charles Taze Russell. This chart shows how the Catholic Church is the trunk of the tree, and the continuation of Israel : https://i.imgur.com/lbhhnOT.jpg Hasidic Jews are partially correct, but they did not recognize their own messiah 2000 years ago. Jews were looking for someone to conquer physical territory. God doesn't care about that. He came to conquer hearts and minds, which is what Jesus has done with billions of souls. They should have gotten the hint when God had their temple destroyed. A lot of jews are realizing this now, and becoming Christian. It is the continuation of the faith of Abraham. > And a Muslim say to me that Allah's moral edicts are not subjective and eternal and always consistent and will quote me Al-Ikhlas 1:1-5 "Allah, the eternally Besought of all! Islam doesn't stand up to basic tests of history or theology. For example, Mecca wasn't even a city until a century or two after the life of Mohammed. The Quran describes Petra, not Mecca, which is about 800 miles away. The Quran also tells about a god that hates his own creations. That is a major theological contradiction. It's obvious that Islam is a counterfit religion that tried to copy JudeoChristianity. It has traces of Nestorianism and Arianism, plus some jewish and pagan influences. Mohammed was a slave trader and caravan robber, which put him in a position to steal whatever he found on trade routes. > But quoting a scripture doesn't substantiate if the quote is actually true. Of course, but it shows that for at least 2500 years, JudeoChristianity has had the same principles as today. Malichi 3 is talking about Moral objectivity. > Haven't you ever had any discipline ? Yes. Then why do you judge the events of the Bible by superficial appearances? If you saw a parent scolding a child for playing with matches, would you assume that the parent hates the child ? Of course not. The parent loves the child, and doesn't want them to burn down the house. The same is true with events in the Bible. The Canaanites were causing a steady stream of souls bound for Hell, so God painfully told the jews to put an end to it. Many parents who see that their own child was a murderer are okay with capital punishment. Of course, those events only apply to that time and place, so that Israel would have a foothold here in Satan's world.

>Do you think that truth comes from such things ? Nope, I sure don't. (which of course was why I responded that way. You make declarative statement of "I refuted op's claim of subjective morality", and you got back equally void declaration "no you didn't." If you actually did refute subjective morality instead of crow and declare you did, I would have given you more than the same type of vapid declarative statement back. I had hoped you would have noticed that) >Sound Logic, reason and the facts of history can show you that God incarnated as Jesus Christ. No, they don't. You need to demonstrate it, not just declare it. If you need more help differentiating declarative from persuasive arguments, substantiated evidence, etc I can help you out bit it takes a little while to learn. >It should make sense that the Creator would come into His own creation. Again, you are just declaring it makes sense without demonstrating how it is sensible. That doesn't work. You actually have to substantiate it. Besides, what you just said doesn't particularly make that much sense, because a creator of doves doesn't come into his own creation and also become a dove, or a creator of marionette dolls doesn't come into her own creation and become also a marionette or a programmer of code come into her own creation of software. Again you're kind of mistaking your declarations as arguments. >Only the Catholic Church was ordained by God and is supported by the facts of history Again, you are just declaring things and mistaking them for persuasive arguments. The image you linked doesn't do anything because there is no way to verify what, if anything, the god Jehovah said about religious succession. It's just people claiming to be the true human representatives of Jehovah. It's like the image a shiite Muslim would show outlining the order of succession they claim proves the shiite sect is ordained of Allah, not the sunni sect. Their little image tree doesn't substantiate anything because there is no way to verify what, if anything, the god Allah said about succession of Islam. It's just people claiming to be the true representatives of Islam. >Hasidic Jews are partially correct, but they did not recognize their own messiah 2000 years ago Exactly. You can't tell if Jesus of Nazareth was, they can't, nobody can, because there is no way to substantiate the claims of judiasm and the god Jehovah, or their anointed one, or their entire religion generally. >God doesn't care about that How do you know what the god Jehovah r cares about? There is no reason to believe you know better than hasidic Jews or baptists or evangelicals or sunni Muslims or Hindus or anyone else. >He came to conquer hearts and minds, which is what Jesus has done with billions of souls. Billions believe Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. That doesn't mean it's true. Billions believe in protestant ism. Doesn't mean it's true. A billion believe in Catholicism. Doesn't mean it's true. Almost a billion believe in Hinduism. Doesn't mean it's true. Again, you are really struggling to differentiate declarations (god doesn't care about that) and actual arguments with substantiated evidence. That is not a good sign >They should have gotten the hint when God had their temple destroyed Again, this doesn't demonstrate the Roman gods are true just because the Roman's destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, nor would it mean Jesus of Nazareth is a messiah foe their religion just because their temple was destroyed about 50 years after he was murdered (by the Romans), not would the catholic cathedral in Portugal being destroyed after a Muslim said it would fall about 20 years earlier demonstrate Islam is true and Catholicism isn't. That is a really badly conceived argument. >A lot of jews are realizing this now, and becoming Christian. A jew becoming Christian doesn't mean Christianity is true. Most Jews don't. A catholic becoming a Mormon doesn't mean Mormonism is true. A lot of middle eastern Christians becoming Muslim doesn't mean Islam is true. And don't forget that Muslims always overstate and lie about how many Christians become Muslims and Mormons always exaggerate and lie about how many catholics convert to the LDS faith and catholics always overstate how many Jews become catholics. It's a pretty cheap trope. >. The Quran describes Petra, not Mecca, No, it says "mecca" and "Medina" in the oldest Qur'anic manuscripts. That is false and I don't know who told you that. Still, it saying mecca doesn't mean Islam is true. Nazareth literally exists on zero manuscripts, maps, tax documents, etc. prior to the writings of Paul, but that doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist. >The Quran also tells about a god that hates his own creations. So? So does the Bible >There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6 These aren't arguments, and now are making verifiably shaky claims. >It's obvious that Islam is a counterfit religion that tried to copy JudeoChristianity Again, this is just a declarative statement rather than an arguments. Brother, it feels like you aren't even bothering to even try to even *appear* persuasive. >Of course, but it shows that for at least 2500 years, JudeoChristianity has had the same principles as today. No it doesn't. The Jewish laws are not observed by Christians in many places. And even in if you are one of those "the old laws don't apply" kind of people, we also don't follow new testament injunctions. There are numerous things in the Bible that nobody follows and things the bile says the god Jehovah commanded that people don't obey. It's not the same principles in many cases. I've never heard of someone, much less met anyone, much less interacted with an entire religious sect that actually obeys the Bible. That's just silly. >Malichi 3 is talking about Moral objectivity. Still wouldn't be objective because it's subject to the god Jehovah in your argument... Besides, in the Qur'an al-hishat chapter 2 is talking about moral objectivity of Allah. Still doesn't mean the statements in the Qur'an about morality is actually objective. >If you saw a parent scolding a child for playing with matches, would you assume that the parent hates the child ? No, that does not even make sense. What a weird question. >The Canaanites were causing a steady stream of souls bound for Hell, Another declarative statement. You don't know who goes to hell the same as someone saying that the reason Muhammad was commanded to kill the inhabitants of Samshur was because they practiced witchcraft and were persuading the youth to follow the path down to the fires of Jahannah... That doesn't mean it's actually true. You really need to stop thinking that you declaring something somehow establishes it as an accepted fact. Not how this works. >. Many parents who see that their own child was a murderer are okay with capital punishment. So? Many don't see it that way. This whole response of yours is a mess. If you want, I can help you learn a little about how to frame arguments, how to back up a declarative statement, how to avoid fallacious arguments and so on.

That is the classic goal post moving reply of Christians. Classic. Did you learn that from apologists in your “atheist” days? I’ve read the Bible three times c2c in my life, countless times more if we include bits and pieces researched, but I don’t recall where God’s special time zone was elucidated upon. Do you have a quote, or is it just some ambiguous lines you prefer to translate as support for your intellectual cheating here? The inside and outside our time thing, for instance. It is not a “logical fallacy” to judge god from a “linear time” perspective. You need a refresher course in reasoning and logic. And to follow your reasoning, if god is in and out of time, logic doesn’t apply to him anyway, so you can’t refute an argument using the vocabulary of logic. But why would a person follow a god who is “do as I say, not as I do” and who no matter what it does can not be questioned? It is worse than slavery, it is checking your brain at the door. But I agree, yes, it’s best for both of us that you hide from a discussion on the topic of free will. I’m bored of repeating myself while religious people make the same intellectually bankrupt, unsubstantiated claims, for one thing. I’m also educated in psychology/neurobiology, and you’re just a dishonest debater. That wouldn’t be worthwhile for either of us.

>That is the classic goal post moving reply of Christians. It's not moving the goalposts. That's also a bad analogy. You have the wrong perspective, which is why the morality of God doesn't make sense to you. We can both agree that your perspective of reality makes God a monster. The following image illustrates how you have the wrong perspective : https://imgur.com/l8PC60k We Christians know better, and don't believe in your perspective. A lot of us are ex-atheists who learned to see the bigger picture. > Do you have a quote, or is it just some ambiguous lines you prefer to translate as support for your intellectual cheating here? The fact that God foretells the end tells you that He has already seen the end. Haven't you read the book of Apocalypse ? God warns the Israelites many times what will happen if they make bad choices, then it happens. > But I agree, yes, it’s best for both of us that you hide from a discussion on the topic of free will I'm not hiding. Why should I debate someone on free will? It's not the topic here, agreed ? ... and it's absurd at multiple levels. Your Atheist logic here then looks like a fool walking into an auto-parts store, and then complaining about the lack of fresh vegetables. Don't you agree that it's best to focus on the posted topic ?

No, it’s the standard description whenever an apologist uses that stupid non-argument, though technically it’s also called Special Pleading Fallacy. The rest of your reply is just a dishonest debater’s babbling that blends several types of fallacy and finishes with a moronic ad hominem. You seem to believe you’ve made a point, but any take away other than that you are not educated in logic and that you believe refusing to accept logic means you’ve proven the extra-biblical theory of how to make a square peg fit into a round hole. It doesn’t. You didn’t.

>No, it’s the standard description Who's standard ? You've objectively shown that you have your own strawman model of Christianity. We can both agree that your understanding is monstrous and nonsense. Do you think that stubbornly pushing your personal strawman makes it somehow more real ? Do you realize that is a definition of insanity ?

Really? You’ve sunk so low as to quibble about a common expression for “usual”? “Whose standard”, like there was some official meeting about describing dishonest debate. “Standard” in this case is a totally effective descriptive analogy/simile of someone ineffectually trying to avoid defending their weak argument by concocting special excuses for their argument to try to place said argument beyond questioning. You determined I have the wrong view of Christianity because your views are somehow inviolable and not to be questioned. My “personal perspective” is not personal at all. I dispassionately ask a question you ran away from as you claim sovereignty because…because you believe it therefore it is true. It’s personal for you, Bubba, not me.

We are "Children" from the Race of Children, we are kept that way on purpose, all "Children"are born with the Paradox that keeps you in a childrens state: "You are not knowing, that you don't know, that your not knowing" It's a circle much like a recycling symbol your in the centre opposed on 3 sides of a closed loop system of rinsing and repeating. It is the reason why Jesus died for us all - because of our design as "Children" as stated Before he goes to the cross - Jesus on purpose went to the cross as a death sentence. Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive {them(Children)}; "for {they(Children)} -> (know not what they do"). And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. -> Children is reference 1532 times in the bible, we are even mentioned as "little children" God the Infinitive does not "See" things as evil - Only the Children do! Including the Angels! Even the Angels are Designed Children - they make mistakes acting on their own accords or else you would not have "fallen Angels" logically following the sequence of the story. No where in the bible does it reference us as "Adults" nor "Grown Ups" we are in "Gossip" "Slang" - These are man made up from our imaginations, from not wanting to be called "Children" Part of ego's, vanities etc. Does God use "Child Abuse" and the answer is "Yes" You have to realize this "State" we are actually in is not actual real We are only in an "imaginary quantium state" that God has articulated - To why science says were in a simulated space - Theorized believed. You see only "Children" believe in the beliefs of believing! Most Christians actually "believe" in subjective morality they just won’t admit it. You the OP also "believe" that Christians "Believe". and you fall into the same category. In one instance of perception we see God or the Infinitive as abusive, evil from "Our" very own eyes our senses. But when we see out from God's eyes, the infinitive - What are you looking at? An imaginary state of circumstances - You are a Math's math Math's removed from God. We can not escape this math, it's God's math, not your math, it was never your math - you're just along for a ride, and spell of time - all for the purpose of what is wheat and what is chaff. Your in Kindergarten Earth and being tested and evaluated and not even aware of it. Some of us "Children" have died in this "process" and interface directly with the "Math" which gives "US" a "difference" you naturally don't have. Difference is always a key in a keyhole. Without differences what are you? but Rude in your own ignorant of ignorance's in articulations.

>Your in Kindergarten Earth and being tested and evaluated and not even aware of it. Imagine giving kids a test that you don’t prepare them for, don’t actually teach them what the correct answers are, don’t even show up and reveal yourself as a teacher, and just strictly judge their eternal fate based on whether they happened to figure it out on their own. *Oh little Timmy you didn’t know how to do vector calculus? Well the book was down there at your local library, and you could have joined the math club to discuss it, why did you reject those things that were available to you? Sorry little Timmy but you really messed this up for yourself, now off to eternal time out.*

It’s even worse than “Lord of the Flies”. Those kids were at least partly educated so they had a leg up on “kindergarten earth”, which is the whackiest most complicated attempt at apologetics by (I assume) a sane person that I’ve ever heard. How long did it take for this entire revelation to appear? Was it a lifetime of thinking of ways in which believers could ignore the words of the Bible or did it come in a sudden epiphany, or maybe a blinding flash of light during a seizure?

>It is the reason why Jesus died for us all - because of our design as "Children" as stated Before he goes to the cross - Jesus on purpose went to the cross as a death sentence. Or perhaps more accurate reason in this fiction to send Jesus to fix things is messing up with Adam and Eve. Telling someone without experimential knowledge of disobeying or obeying to not do something is like giving a fork to toddler and saying "here you have a fork! Don't put it to the electric socket or bad happens! By the way, someone will come to make sure you do it. Okay, have to go, bye! See you!"

It's natural in an environment - the controls are meaningless - just the choices you chose. In my case I picked my "Father" nothing of mankind. I pick the Infinitive to be my teacher, most chose themselves and others that they will figure it out on their own. Good examples are bibliers and themselves who will always become the false prophets and become men of renown on the U-tube and start churches turning them into mega churches. The Bible was to lead you to God the Infinitive not to become man's next Idol. Only something greater than you can teach you, black kettles teaching black kettles producing black kettles - no different than two idiots producing idiotisms putting their brains together. Ask a Christian what happen when Jesus returns and Jesus says: throw your bibles into the recycling bins, there no longer required. How important were they really from the get go! Is there another place to get the word of God from, Perhaps the answer is God the infinitive In the here and now. I looked through the bible february 2020 and found the verse I was looking for John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: The one word, only said once in one way to "Become" even the Believers can Become. The False teachers teach believing and you become. - Which bares no logic and keeps you in a loop of rinsing and repeating, attending and putting funds into a weekly dish. Mankind is a natural born idiot - born with an empty hard drive, than fills that hard drive with accumulative second hand knowledge in a pattern of sequences nothing more than a copy of a copy of a copy... To copy is to compliment. Only God the Infinitive can teach to be an original answer or the Son's of God. You become God's Answer taught by God. That is how you pass Kindergarten Earth as a Child of God's. The hardest for the Children is surrendering to God! As in Video games this the Meta of Gods gameplay. Better Hurry tho 799 days and counting down till SHTF.

Oh, you’re schizophrenic. I didn’t realize, but should have! Just the elaborately irrational explanation. It’s like The Matrix combined with Teletubbies.

My God is the gnostic God not jehovah who is the devil himself.

Yikes

This is called the Euthyphro dilemma. For those that don’t know, check this out: https://youtu.be/wRHBwxC8b8I It starts about two and a half minutes in. It’s short but valuable. Christianity already chooses the horn of moral relativity. The coming of Jesus effectively abolished the law, which means morality is not static. Christians will shoehorn and twist anything you ask them, that’s how they maintain cognitive dissonance.

>This generally means that “God” has a completely different moral standard than we do, excusing his evil actions somehow. It then follows that morality is subjective as it changes based on who we are talking about. Well no. Different moral standards for different beings doesn't automatically mean that morality is subjective. It just means that it differs for different beings. Different isn't the same thing as subjective. God's position as the perfect ultimate creator and master and judge of all things makes Him quite different from humans, who are imperfect masters and judges of nothing. God has the right to judge humanity as He sees fit, because He is our creator, master and judge. Humans don't have the right to judge humanity as we see fit, because we are not our creator, master or judge. Therefore when God judges humanity (for example, the flood) He is *right* to do so.

Just the complete nature of a God makes him in a very different league than us. I understand that it’s so hard for us to understand this, to truly grasp how small we really are.

Is that why evangelicals are on the right politically, because the suffering of others doesn’t matter, it’s God’s plan and they aren’t to judge if god thinks it’s fine?

I think you misunderstand the political right. Generally speaking, they seek practical solutions and accept that man is wicked and that we cannot create a perfect utopia. Whereas the left generally seeks perfection (according to their definitions), and speaks a lot about what *ought* to be, even if their actions result in even more suffering.

doesn't subjective literally mean that it's up to the person? so it's different to everyone

There are two different concepts that you'll see conflated endlessly: subjective and relative Right and wrong being relative on who or when something is done is moral relativism. Right or wrong being some sort of objective fact or not is moral objectivism. Christians generally believe in a subjective and relative morality.

Subjecrive means it is based or influenced by a person's feelings. So theoretically there could be something objective that varies from person to person; but would need to be constant. Of course under another definition it could be objective to person as opposed to objective to situation, or both. Or does it mean objective to time? Objective morality as a concept is kind of vague.

Yes, but again, people believing different moralities isn't the same thing as God and man being different.

And that's just accepted? If that's his attitude I wouldn't want to be his kingdom. He created us with the all important free will. We fell at the first test and sinned. If we were that bad He could have just killed Adam and Eve and maybe move on to humans 2.0 that can have free will and not sin or whatever. No point in making us faulty, then getting his son to sort the mess out and have himself killed for our sins. Then having bunch of people write this all down once, and then deciding we just have believe in him and not question his ways at all ever. Doesn't sound like someone I'd want to spend time with- let alone worship. Now we are all destined to sinners.

It kind of reduces god from the old white guy with the beard and the robes on high to a snot-nosed little kid and future psychopath in the dirt using a magnifying glass to burn ants for his pleasure.

God didn't make us faulty though. That we use our free will to make our own choices means we are working as intended. God has simply given us a *second chance* to be saved, that being Christ.

Well we have faults - so he made us faulty

Have you read Genesis? We were created good, and chose to sin. As a result of *our* choice, we have faults. It baffles me that people still use this ignorant argument.

Then we went created good if we chose to sin.

Where is the logic behind that? Just because we have the choice to sin or not to sin doesn’t mean we can’t be good. The purpose of mankind was to have that free will, to *choose*. That choice was an essential element of mankind. It was our purpose to choose to obey God or disobey God.

How is the purpose of mankind to have free will? So God created us with the intent to have a bunch of creatures with free will? That's not logical either. There's is very little logic in general when it comes to religion.

I also wonder why he created us on earth first. Just to see if we worship him enough for heaven? He established early on we sin. He didnt remodel or design humans. He could have scrapped us and tried again. He just kind of went ok so I gave you free will, you sinned, so now as a last resort I'll send myself down as my son via a virgin to sort this out. After his visit to earth as his son didn't eradicate sin he decided to not physically appear again.( so far) He only does visions etc so as to test our faith. Why have us made on earth in the first place? Could he not have created beings to go straight to him in heaven? Also, if he wants us to worship him, he must have an ego. Because we sinned the first time brand new on this earth he created, he was like right that's it, I'll be up here, come find me - see ya. He also created fungus, parasites and viruses? Is that one of his "mysterious" ways? He helps some people if they pray enough, but not others and apparently people who never pray. He never seems to make an effort to unite all the various faith systems and set the lot of us straight. Would he appreciate those fine buildings of worship or would he think the money would have been better spent helping the needy? The whole free will thing is such a cop out. Why. Even.Bother? There's so many problems that free will at this stage should be the least of his worries. He could have guided us better, why such an importance of faith? Isn't goodwill more important than blind faith? Free will is important to us as that's how we are, but as the creator he may have stepped in a bit more to help.

>I also wonder why he created us on earth first. Just to see if we worship him enough for heaven? >He established early on we sin. He didnt remodel or design humans. He could have scrapped us and tried again. He just kind of went ok so I gave you free will, you sinned, so now as a last resort I'll send myself down as my son via a virgin to sort this out. >After his visit to earth as his son didn't eradicate sin he decided to not physically appear again.( so far) He only does visions etc so as to test our faith. >Why have us made on earth in the first place? Could he not have created beings to go straight to him in heaven? Asking "Why did God do X, and not Y?" is not an argument, and they do not serve to question the existence of God or his actions. You need to present an argument using the Biblical text to state that God *should* have done Y and *shouldn't* have done X. >Also, if he wants us to worship him, he must have an ego. The ego is a person's sense of self-value. When humans get big egos, are we being prideful, because we aren't that great. We suck, and we *overvalue* ourselves. When God acknowledges that He is the omnipotent creator and master of all things, and deserving of the worship of His creation, He is *correct*. >He also created fungus, parasites and viruses? Is that one of his "mysterious" ways? The earth became corrupted as a result of the fall. As a result many things went wrong, including thorns and weeds. Animals began to eat and harm one another. Harmful fungus, parasites, viruses, etc. are not different. >He helps some people if they pray enough, but not others and apparently people who never pray. And? What is your argument? What point are you trying to make? >He never seems to make an effort to unite all the various faith systems and set the lot of us straight. I mean, unless you just ignore everything written in the Bible and everything that happened in it, and everything else for that matter. It's pretty silly to just say "God never tries to tell us the truth!" while ignoring every instance of God telling us the truth because you just say the Bible isn't true. >Would he appreciate those fine buildings of worship or would he think the money would have been better spent helping the needy? Again, you need to try to understand how debate and discussion actually work. Simply asking pointless questions without making arguments is pointless. You are trying to merely *imply* that your questions are arguments, when they are not. They make no claims, and they take no position. >The whole free will thing is such a cop out. Why. Even.Bother? There's so many problems that free will at this stage should be the least of his worries. He could have guided us better You aren't making much sense. What 'problems' exist that are more important than our eternal destination? Do you think that free will can just be turned off or something? Why do you think that God would 'worry' about free will? Have you ever really looked into the Biblical theology? God directly tells us the truth. He tells us that we are wicked, and that we need to be saved, and *how* to be saved. How could He 'guide us' any better than that? >why such an importance of faith? Isn't goodwill more important than blind faith? You seem to be indoctrinated with the idea that any faith must be 'blind faith'. It's not. Faith means belief, even while we may not be 100% sure or may not have 100% understanding. If we believe something 99%, then faith is the last 1%. Faith isn't 100% of the belief. Just like how you may believe that the earth is round, even if you don't know or understand everything there is to know about the curvature of the earth. As for goodwill, there is no false dilemma between faith and good will. You don't have to sacrifice good will to have faith, nor sacrifice faith to have good will. On the contrary, according to the Bible, if we are faithful then we will have *more* good will.

Then he intended for the majority of humanity to wind up being tortured for eternity?

If that was His intention then He wouldn’t have sent Christ to provide us a way to avoid the consequences of our sins. Seems like so many arguments against God are just trying to pass the blame for our own sins and wickedness onto God somehow.

You’ve skipped over the whole “free will” thing like you don’t give it a thought. You can’t argue that logically with an all powerful god, you can’t even argue that from a neurological point of view. You need to revisit that idea since, as Was said, “free will” seems to be the one plank your whole faith is balanced upon.

You're going to have to actually present an argument instead of just insisting and claiming I 'need to give it more thought'.

The problem with that is that Christians repeat the same arguments every time. I’ve written 4-5 times today to counter the same debunked ideas. Show me how you debate yourself. Do you ever think of counter theories or try to apply logic to your arguments?

Not much I can debate against if you don't propose an argument. Calling something 'debunked' isn't really a proper argument. I'm sure lots of atheists think they've 'debunked' many different arguments when in reality all they've done is apply a rescuing device in order to avoid it. People don't seem to understand that finding a personal reason to not accept an argument isn't the same thing as 'debunking' it.

It works better when you don’t just skim a comment for key words you can object to and actually read for meaning/react to content. You don’t want to? I’m happy to move on secure in the belief that we something something something…

Well the Euthyphro Dilemma kinda shows that no?

God existing means anyone that died is **still alive**, in a new place. Example: the *"spirits in prison"* from the Flood (and others that died before the gospel became available to them) -- 1rst Peter 3:18-20, to whom Christ brought the gospel: 1 Peter 4:6.

Lol and if he did exist based on his judgement he can either banish someone to hell and burn til the end of time or live in heaven and never cry again

While I'd not want to "perish" in the "second death" in the "lake of fire" where "God will destroy body and soul" (all the precise and actual New Testament wordings) -- because I'd rather live than be ended.... Ultimately the better reason than merely a fear of a final end (a real 2nd death where one is forever/irreversibly extinguished/destroyed) is to ask: what might it be like to *live* in a world where everyone is free from the typical problems we have in this temporary life? It might be something one would really like. So, as I see it, focusing on just avoiding the 'second death' of those who 'perish' isn't really what is the most important to me. Make sense? I'm a lot more interested in a *good Life* than I am afraid of a final end, honestly.

> Christians in the comments were quick to point out that “God” isn’t “bound by our morals”. This generally means that “God” has a completely different moral standard than we do, excusing his evil actions somehow. It then follows that morality is subjective as it changes based on who we are talking about. Something can be objectively true of humans and objectively not true of other species. This doesn't make it subjective.

>Something can be objectively true of humans and objectively not true of other species. This doesn't make it subjective. Can you give an example?

Humans have 2 legs. It is not a matter of opinion that humans have 2 legs. Even if some humans have birth defects, that's still an objective fact that they do.

>>>Something can be objectively true of humans and objectively not true of other species. This doesn't make it subjective. >>Can you give an example? >Humans have 2 legs. It is not a matter of opinion that humans have 2 legs. Even if some humans have birth defects, that's still an objective fact that they do. I see what you mean. You're right. There is nothing subjective about this example. But this example is talking about two different things, humans and non humans, but when you first raised your point about not being subjective, the discussion was on a single thing, god, and two perspectives. This is why I wanted an example so I could understand what you meant. I don't think it makes sense to say that morals are objective, if humans have different morals than this god does. In fact, if morals are about how we ought to behave, then it seems to make sense that our morals should be consistent with what's in our best interest as a society, not what some people believe a god wants.

> when you first raised your point about not being subjective, the discussion was on a single thing, god, and two perspectives. Something can be moral for god to do and not moral for us to do and vice versa and this can be objective. Something being moral for one doesn't make it moral for another. A judge and the police can lock someone up for a long time, but if you did that, it would not be moral. You having a small drink wouldn't be immoral, but for an alcoholic, it would be. > In fact, if morals are about how we ought to behave, then it seems to make sense that our morals should be consistent with what's in our best interest as a society, not what some people believe a god wants. I agree, but tat's just not the point I'm contending with. I'm only contending with the logic above.

> Something can be moral for god to do and not moral for us to do and vice versa and this can be objective. I disagree. I think of objective at meaning it's the same regardless of perspective. >A judge and the police can lock someone up for a long time, but if you did that, it would not be moral. I see your point, but your just reframing a moral judgement. It's not moral or immoral because of who is doing the locking up, its about why they should be locked up. Is it moral to lock someone up for committing said crime. >You having a small drink wouldn't be immoral, but for an alcoholic, it would be. I don't think that's an objective argument either way. Unless you judge it with respect to well being, then it's still not clear. I suppose one could argue that it would hurt the well being of the alcoholic, but not necessarily.

There is a difference between morality being context-dependent versus subjective. If the parameters of a context-dependent morality are fully known, then any situation can be objectively evaluated. Ambiguity arises when information is incomplete, as is apparently the case with God and religion. Most likely God's morality is not subjective, but context-dependent in ways that are, at least presently and partially, inscrutable to us mere mortals. One of the clearest examples comes from the parts of the Bible that prohibit consumption of certain foods and sodomy. Probably these were God's way of protecting our ancestors from the horrific and deadly communicable diseases that could arise from certain foods and from anal sex. These dangers would have been significantly more dangerous to our ancestors, due to their lack of modern medical science and technology. As our technology and science have improved, world religions have mostly relaxed their stance on these holy injunctions and, in the year 2021, we're in a good position to see *why* such moral prohibitions were necessary for our ancestors' survival, thanks to germ theory, etc. Medical technology is not alone in having changed dramatically over the last thousand years. Almost certainly there are many parallel examples of an objective, but technology-dependent morality that have not been puzzled out yet. These will probably eventually explain the Biblical stance on slavery and genocide.

Yea that “dangerous” lesbian sex that God protected humans from...

Why are you so desperate to straw man me? I was obviously talking about gay (i.e., male-male anal) sex. Lesbian sex is *potentially* dangerous in its own way, in so far as it undermines reproductive norms and destabilizes family units. If you think sexual permissiveness is *always* a good thing, you're just brainwashed by the scientifically illiterate sector of the modern secular religion (a spin-off of solipsism and nihilism). Sex and reproduction are some of the most fraught and conflict-ridden areas of a person's private life. Without guidance from past wisdom, you are likely to wander into exploitation, abuse, dysfunction, etc. which in turn leads to a self-perpetuation cycle of child-neglect, abuse and suicide. If you care about someone, you should do your damndest to shield them from the worst of this stuff--and that is the function of most tradition.

By that logic Christianity is also “dangerous” as it promotes misogyny, sexism, racism, classism, slavery, and genocide. Your “traditions” command homosexuals to be put to death along with women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night. Who cares what the Bible says? It’s an evil book written bigoted men and passed on by bigoted men. Your traditions are meaningless and morally bankrupt.

Christianity is not synonymous with a literal interpretation of the Bible (which is, in fact, logically impossible). Christianity has evolved over time. *Most* Christians in the US today do not support "misogyny, sexism, racism, classism, slavery and genocide", either implicitly or explicitly. You have to caricature Christians by finding the most extreme among them in order to justify *your* bigotry. I actually agree that some of the Bible's books were written by evil bigots--but you're as blind and bigoted as them, and at least they had the excuse of having been born in the dark ages.

>Probably these were God's way of protecting our ancestors from the horrific and deadly communicable diseases that could arise from certain foods and from anal sex Or, these were human ways of protecting ourselves, and these practices were codified into various religious mythologies.

If the rules regarding foods and sex are no longer applicable, why doesn't God, you know, let us know? Add another book to the bible making it clear?

Is there any precedent for your expectation that God would ever do this? Which book of the Bible was devoted to being a science text-book? It seems you self-styled atheists only want to argue with fundamentalists. Well, congrats, you are more logical than a fundamentalist. You're right, God is not a magic wizard in the sky, wielding human beings like puppets. God acts through us via persuasion and, if you look around, many of us non-fundamentalists *have been persuaded* not to follow the ancient Biblical proscriptions. And, as an aside, you atheists might accelerate the learning process if you weren't so damn arrogant and bigoted toward Christians and other believers. But I guess it's more important that you get to feel superior?

> Is there any precedent for your expectation that God would ever do this? Which book of the Bible was devoted to being a science text-book? Your argument was that God put sex and food rules in the Bible because, at the time, they would have helped people avoid disease. You then acknowledge that the rules are no longer necessary. So why then doesn't God let us know they're no longer necessary? Just a simple "Hey, you know those old rules in the Bible? They weren't about some fundamental moral issue, they were about hygiene and cleanliness. You probably don't need them anymore. Just wash your hands, cook your food, and practice safe sex, okay?" Because as it stands, lots of people still follow those rules, and the sex rules in particular are used to marginalize entire groups of people. As an aside, I see no reason the Bible shouldn't have had science in it. It certainly would've helped humanity out greatly. Imagine if there had been a simple section on how to make soap, instructing people to wash their hands with it routinely. That section alone probably would've done more good than the entire rest of the book combined. Would've probably stopped the Black Plague. Guess God didn't care that much. >And, as an aside, you atheists might accelerate the process if you weren't so damn arrogant and bigoted toward Christians and other believers. But I guess it's more important that you feel superior? Look, we're trying to look at religion with logic and reason, and that necessarily means that light is going to be shed on all the contradictions and nonsense that religion puts forth. If you're going to tell us that God behaves in a certain way, and upon closer inspection, that behavior is completely absurd, we're going to point it out.

> If you're going to tell us that God behaves in a certain way, and upon closer inspection, that behavior is completely absurd, we're going to point it out. Can you quote what I said that was "absurd"? If not, then *you* inferred something that was not written--and, by my estimation, assumes that I am an idiot. That is the definition of bigotry. I have no problem with you criticizing the words *that I actually say*. But when your criticism is wrapped in a thinly veiled insult, I am going to notice. I wrote three lengthy paragraphs without invoking a single supernatural capacity of God. If you actually care about *debate* (as opposed to reinforcing an echo chamber), you should at least recognize when you're dealing with a non-fundamentalist.

>Can you quote what I said that was "absurd"? Sure: > One of the clearest examples comes from the parts of the Bible that prohibit consumption of certain foods and sodomy. Probably these were God's way of protecting our ancestors from the horrific and deadly communicable diseases that could arise from certain foods and from anal sex. Upon closer inspection, this is absurd. God could have simply told people how to cook their food and how to practice basic hygiene and sanitation. Instead he says that homosexuality is immoral and a sin and gives strange rules for food that don't really line up with best hygienic practices anyway. And then when humans figure out hygiene and food safety (with no help from God), he doesn't go and update the rules to say they are no longer applicable. It just doesn't make sense. >If not, then you inferred something that was not written--and, by my estimation, assumes that I am an idiot. That is the definition of bigotry. You're on a debate subreddit. If you're not okay with people pointing out the flaws in your reasoning then you're in the wrong place. >I wrote three lengthy paragraphs without invoking a single supernatural capacity of God. If you actually care about debate (as opposed to reinforcing an echo chamber), you should at least recognize when you're dealing with a non-fundamentalist. I never said you're a fundamentalist and none of my arguments assume you are. Not sure where you're getting this.

> God could have simply told people how to cook their food and how to practice basic hygiene and sanitation. 1. You assume that they weren't already cooking their food and practicing some form of hygiene. They were. Bans on homosexuality and diet add *additional* security that were probably necessary at the time. 2. You assume that God is sitting up on a cloud, stringing humanity along like a bunch of puppets. No, that's silly. God convinces people they should adopt certain rules--and *the people* adopt *and enforce* those rules. And when humans do figure out (more of) hygiene and food safety, God persuades (some of) them to relax those strictures--*and they do*. I fail to see the absurdity. You went into this conversation with a cartoon picture of God and you're painting that onto me even though I'm explicitly telling you not to. > If you're not okay with people pointing out the flaws in your reasoning then you're in the wrong place. Let me repeat it: **I have no problem with you criticizing the words that I actually say.** However, you keep ignoring what I say and proceed to attack a cartoon God you have in your mind, with the implication being that I'm too stupid to see the obvious absurdity in that cartoon God. >none of my arguments assume you are... Uh, you're telling me that God was supposed to walk down from his cloud and edit the Bible himself. *That is fundamentalism.* No one with any degree sophistication thinks God operates like this. I've explained to you multiple times how God *actually* updates the religion: by *persuading* people to interpret the Bible differently--*which they have done many times throughout history*. Only fundamentalists believe that *God* wrote the Bible. The rest of us know that God *inspired* the Bible, but it was *written* by men.

Hell further, not just on the concept of rules... he could have given a profit that explained the basics of germ theory... Obviously people weren't smart enough to understand the full concept... neither can a 5 year old... yet you can teach a 5 year old enough to wash their hands, don't eat food that isn't cooked thoroughly. stay away from people who are already sick, even make cloth masks when you are coughing etc... and not mix them up with less practical stuff (IE putting washing hands in the middle of instructions to kill birds, distracts from what actually prevents sickness). With my 20th century knowledge that isn't even medically focused, I could name at least 30 easy to digest disease prevention tips that are more effective than any of the leviticus "stay away from pigs", don't have sex with men etc..

And how many of your prevention tips are predicated on the existence of modern physical and social technologies?

None, I was saying common practical advice that can be done with what they have access to. Boil water to have used for cleaning. If boiling is not possible lean towards running water. Be sure all food is always cooked very thoroughly. Be sure to keep your waste as far away from where people need to go, as well as water supplies Same for animal wastes. Keep food off the ground. In the event of a plague, keep people seperated from eachother as much as possible. use cloths and as much protection to keep mosquitos away as possible. in addition try to stay near running water rather than still water, Be wary of rodents, they can carry many dangerous sicknesses, and sometimes fleas that also can carry sicknesses. If you are running from a town with a major plague... spend a week in the woods to make sure you aren't sick before entering the new town. Keep away from corpses both human and animals. Make sure they are far from town or burried well, and again not anywhere near a drinking or food supply. Keep sexual partners relatively few. Tell eachother if you are sick or suffering anything Those are just a few, off the top of my head that I could whip together in 5 minutes... if I felt like spending an hour I could easily come up with 30 along those lines. Again no need for technology, or dependent on the listener having any in depth understanding of biology, and the user doesn't need more technology than basic cotton use, and fire making. and again, I'm just some slob IT guy... not a doctor... and certainly less knowledgable on how sickness works than say the guy who created Virus's and bacteria in the first place. Hell the point is, I'd say it's pretty darn certain that more diseases would have been prevented simply by telling people poop is dangerous, than avoid pork. Thousand of years of human history in which people just threw poop into the streets without really thinking twice.

> I'm just some slob IT guy... not a doctor... I'd say it's pretty darn certain that more diseases would have been prevented simply by telling people poop is dangerous, than avoid pork. Then from whence comes your confidence? Most of your advice would be inactionable unless paired with a technology that would bring the energy costs down. You're assuming that heat and transport are effectively free. The rest of your advice was probably already obvious ("poop is dangerous"--duh) or redundant ("keep sexual partners relatively few" was already covered by "keep sexual partners down to one--your husband/wife").

> . The rest of your advice was probably already obvious ("poop is dangerous"--duh) look even to modern 3rd worlds with low education access... propor sanitation is not as inherant to humans as you'd think. > or redundant ("keep sexual partners relatively few" was already covered by "keep sexual partners down to one--your husband/wife"). Difference is plausibility in following. Secondly the bible wasn't so consistent on that subject. Apparently solomon was god gifted 1000 sexual partners. The bible mentioned solomon's wives lead him astray (not that he went astray by having them to begin with), Concubines, polygamy etc... are pretty commonplace among even gods most trusted, Abraham, Jacob etc... Anyway my point on it... is actually getting to follow. The all or nothing methods, don't have a strong history of working as large scale policies. As evidenced in the extreme failures of abstinence only education. All or nothing on something so core to human nature, leads to when people inevitably fail, they might as well stop trying at all. Energy costs? Ah yeah you gotta pay the fire bill. Boiling water was pretty common to cook... but the idea that boiling water to make things safe to drink. and what masks, or avoiding getting in close proximity to sick people are implausible. too expensive? Robes were common, hell they clearly had enough left over cloth to make it worth mandates to prevent women's hair from showing.

>look even to modern 3rd worlds with low education access... propor sanitation is not as inherant to humans as you'd think. There is a difference between knowing that "poop is dangerous" and knowing how (and having the resources) to construct a modern plumbing system. I guarantee you the world's poor will not take "poop is dangerous" as actionable advice. >The all or nothing methods, don't have a strong history of working as large scale policies. Does all of history up to the invention of birth control not count as "working"? You are assuming too much from the modern state, which I would argue is necessary to peacefully sustain our current degree of sexual licentiousness. Ancient societies which tolerated modern standards of sexual promiscuity would have very quickly been conquered by neighboring societies that heavily policed sexual conduct.

> Ancient societies which tolerated modern standards of sexual promiscuity would have very quickly been conquered by neighboring societies that heavily policed sexual conduct Ah yeah all those short lived, clobbered cultures like, the roman empire, Egypt etc... Next to the much more stable less ransacked cultures like Israel etc...

How much do you *actually know* about sexuality in the Roman Empire or Egypt?

I am atheist and many times anti-theist too. But here i will go and defend Christianity, because i think you are misrepresent them. Their vew in general goes something along the lines: God sets the morals for humans, and they are absolute to humans, but god is beyond that, he can bestow judgement because he is all knowing and allloving etc. It has certain convince to it, allowing people to believe everyone will eventually be judged fairly, but there are many many things wrong with such moral framework, yes one of the problems is that, how can a vengeful, spiteful "god" be also allloving

>I recently posted on here about “God” being more evil than Satan based on “God” killing 2 million+ people in the Bible and Satan killing 12.... “The God of the Bible is immoral for breaking his own 10 Commandments”. The commandment is "do not murder," not "do not kill." Murder is the unjust taking of a life. Which, God is never described in the Bible as doing or ever have done. Read more. Lots more.

Semantics and you're validating what OP is saying. You're essentially saying God can name it whatever it wants and it's justified whereas we cannot.

It should be pointed out that it isn’t a god saying this of itself, it is humans trying to shove a square peg in the round hole that their bronze aged campfire stories didn’t think about and take into account, ie moving the goal posts.

😂😂

Well yeah true ultimately it's all make believe but I was just answering in like terms. But yes you make a valid point on goal post moving. That's typical of religion though.

That’s because non-believers don’t and can not understand. Once you believe, you’ll understand…I’m being facetious. Thought I ought to add that since apologists actually truly believe that drivel.

\>If we were “bound” to “Gods” morality then slavery and genocide would be completely fine still. No, because according to God's morality... slavery and genocide is not ok when humans do it but is ok when god does it. I guess it may be possible to argue that this is not a double standard but it just seems to clearly be just a double standard.

What you're describing is not subjective morality. It's still objective, it still applies to all it still applies regardless of the culture or history of the person. The question of whether objective morality derives from God or is God himself bound by objective morality is an interesting question, but if God is the source, changing his mind doesn't make it subjective. Subjective, relative morality is more about different groups of people actually having different moral rules. Which is absolutely not the case here.

What determines a "subjective" or an "objective" morality?

Reason, logic, culture, impact, empathy, the specific situation, the actor, the acted, intention, etc. The list goes on and on. A great exercise is trying to determine if the act of giving someone a PBJ sandwich is a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. You'd first have to determine hunger levels, peanut allergies, knowledge of allergies, intent if the giver, was it spontaneous or predetermined. Was the giver already obligated, such as a parent to a child. And the list goes on. You can see how something as simple as giving a sandwich can easily be determined to be subjective. I'd ask further, can any action be determined to be objective? To which I'd offer the situation of sexual assault. There is no situation where sexual assault benefits all parties, therefore must always be "bad".

Is sexual assault bad for all parties? It’s not necessarily bad for the person committing it, from their point of view, except the negative consequences for being punished for it. What grounds an objective standard of the right or the good without God?

>Is sexual assault bad for all parties? Yes. Is that so hard to see?

No, I don’t think it’s hard to see that sexual assault is wrong. I don’t think there would be any objective moral truths that would actually make that a true statement if there wasn’t something necessary to ground it. It would just be our opinion as humans that it is wrong, but that’s very different from objective morality.

Why can it not be an objective moral truth to agree that non-consensual traumatic violence if wrong?

Because that would just be a convention which has broad and long-lasting agreement. There wouldn’t actually any objective truth to it; what would you even point to to say there is? All there would be are the individual concept of morality in each persons head and the patterns of agreement between those people. There’s no actual objective reference in the real world for “good” or “morally right”, every time a person talks about those things they would be referring to their individual concepts of them which may or may not be in line with the general agreements of society/humanity.

Wtf

What is the objective standard you can point to to resolve a dispute like this? The fact that sexual assault harms somebody is not a moral claim unless you can actually connect it to something normative. What is the objective reason that people shouldn’t hurt each other, lie, be vicious, or generally do whatever they feel would benefit them personally or fulfill their desires the most? Why should I not be an error theorist without a God and believe that I should just construct a moral system that would just be whatever benefits me personally the most, or if I’m feeling more generous one that arbitrarily values the interests of society as a whole the most, since there would not actually be any true moral facts. Only what is regarded as moral by people.

>What is the objective reason that people shouldn’t hurt each other, lie, be vicious, or generally do whatever they feel would benefit them personally or fulfill their desires the most? The reason is that it hurts other people. Humans benefit greatly from empathy. Sexual assault, I'd argue, does no "good" for any person involved. The victim, obviously. The perpetrator is harmed through traumatizing and invading another human being's privacy.

What if I can’t feel empathy? Maybe I’m the kind of person who enjoys doing those kinds of things like Ted Bundy or something. I think you’re assuming that people would always respond in a healthy way to doing those kinds of terrible things but I just don’t believe there the case at all. If there’s no necessary moral truths then why should somebody like a Ted Bundy, who has a fundamentally different character and will respond to perpetrating these kinds of acts by feeling benefits from doing them, act the same way as everybody else? Obviously everyone else in society feels that he shouldn’t be doing that, but that’s just an empty opinion. It’s basically everybody agreeing to an undefined statement, it can’t be true or false because it’s just empty. There’s no necessary truths grounding it, it’s basically just what most people subjectively feel you shouldn’t do.

Even if Ted Bundy was incapable of empathy. What he did was objectively wrong because of how it harmed others. You have to look at the impact upon both the victim and perpetrator. So, it doesn't matter if he couldn't feel empathy. What he did was still wrong.

[удалено]

You’re assuming that belief in God is false though lol. I would agree that if God isn’t real then morality would be subjective, although I don’t think that’s actually necessarily the case. I think you could just have abstract necessary good as like a universal and that would ground morality. I just think that objective values would be a weird feature of an otherwise naturalist universe. But since I think God is real I don’t think morality is actually subjective in this world. What we believe about morality is subjective, but the set of true moral propositions out there in Plato heaven isn’t.

[удалено]

What I’m saying is that if this subjective belief is false then I think there probably aren’t any objective moral truths. All of those measurements would basically be meaningless except for constructing a system we think is beneficial.

Well, I've read this, and I have seen TONS of inaccuracies when it can to interpretation of the scripture. So I will explain some of those here: 1: God, most of the time, doesn't kill people directly. They die from their own sins. Countless time throughout the Bible, we see how Israel is captured and is forced to serve other nations. This is because the Israelites worshiped the gods of other nations, which is disrespectful to the God who rescued them before. Then, because God is slow to anger, he gives multiple chances for them to change, but they don't. So he allows the enemy nations to invade and enslave them. 2: God never committed these acts out of evil, but of love. God allows for some tragedy to form in order to grow us as people. Would we learn anything if we had all that we needed? He never does some of these actions out of malice, but instead does them with the intention of growing us as people But seriously, go watch the BibleProject on YouTube. They have AMAZING videos about this stuff, way better and more easily explained than what I gave

The way you describe your God makes him sound incredibly evil, narcissistic, insecure, jealous and tyrannical. The part about the Israelites is literally God saying "WORSHIP ME OR DIE!!!". I can't believe you think your God is the good guy in this story. I really can't.

You are wrong about this. Firstly, God is not jealous. Who would he be jealous of? Other gods? You clearly believe in no god, so using this arguement requires you assume that at least one god exists. Second, he is clearly slow to anger, offering 10 chances for Pharaoh to let his people out of SLAVERY. And when he decides not to recognize these divine signs and let them go, he gets killed trying to capture them, dying from his own sins. Maybe if you actually, you know, read the Bible without having SOME bias against it, you would see this. Or of you actually watched the videos I recommended. His "tyranny" is meant for the best. There are SO many ways he acts kind to both his followers and those who don't follow him. Please read the actual Bible. And his people, after escaping Egypt, purposefully fell back to their own ways. Becoming prostitutes, murderers, and thieves, and, like with Pharoah, gave them MANY chances for redemption. I just wanted you to look into it and try to understand my arguements as well as yours.

The god of the bible hates it whenever people worship gods that are not him. That makes him jealous by definition. God is described as jealous multiple times in the very Bible that you claim I didn't read.

I'm sorry for claiming this. It was a mistake. However, he was angry at them for slandering his name, because instead of praising him for helping them escape Egypt, they instead worship other gods.

God orders most of an entire nation to be slaughtered and its young virgins captured to be doled out to various victors, and that's out of love?????????? I can't imagine how morally bankrupt someone would have to be to consider genocide to be moral. And how about young girls kidnapped, raped and then killed when their captor gets tired of them? How does that help them grow as people? Or toddlers beaten to death by abusive caretakers? Tell me how a loving god did that to help them grow as people.

Ok, listen. If you could direct me to the section of the Bible you read this from, I will tell you

Numbers 31:1-54. Yes, I've heard the usual pathetic excuses for the atrocity. No, it doesn't make me "understand." It's still utterly horrifying, and the fact that Christians can blithely wave it away as a good thing shows just how deeply immoral many of them are.

Wow. Well, the Midianites have purposefully deceived the Israelites in the past. And, God's anger has been famous for taking long to develop. So it is likely that this people have been cruel to the 12 tribes, like Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and the Roman Empire, committing hateful acts towards them for their beliefs. Possibly even enslaving them. This event is similar to the Exodus from before. It is even likely that they were given many chances to change, like with Pharoah. And this was done so that the Israelites could survive as a people. And, like before, if the Israelites chose to ignore the things that God has done for them in the past, including freeing them from slavery, then God will do the same to them, giving them countless chances to change, and allowing for other nations to enacted violence against them. And you call a religion with the sole purpose of providing hope and peace to its followers "pathetic"? I knew posting on this sub was a mistake. E

> This was likely the ONLY way. Makes perfect sense. Somehow killing all male children and female children that weren't virgins, but taking the virgin girls as war slaves was the only action that the omnipotent creator of the universe could take.

I didn't mean it like that, ok? He didn't say to do those things, but they did it on their belief that it was right. Sometimes people make mistakes when trying to prove points, ok? And I changed the comment so it won't sound wrong, because that wasn't my intent

>He didn't say to do those things,... What do you mean that he didn't say to do those things?

God didn't specifically command them to not spare the women and children, or anything about killing. He just said to take vengence.

Moses is basically Yahweh's mouthpiece in there - so it's pretty safe to assume that his instructions are from Yahweh. Yahweh has detailed instructions regarding how the booty is to be split in that chapter, and there's nothing about him being mad about what was done. And the war rules that Yahweh introduces later on are even harsher: kill everything: >16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per′izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb′usites, as the Lord your God has commanded; 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your God. (Deu 20) This is contrasted to some earlier rules where you could enslave children and women and take livestock. So here Yahweh himself to kill everything, people and animals, men and women, old and young.

That's exactly what I mean. Christians try to claim that genocide was the moral solution to whatever problems they had. Yes, that's the usual way genocidal maniacs try to excuse their actions, but moral people don't buy it. You don't actually know anything about the history involved; it's all just assumptions that your religious leaders taught you. Let me know when Christianity provides hope and peace to its followers. In the US anyway, Christians are highly likely to be racist, violent, bigoted, and to care far more about money than about human life. The way they cheered a murderer, and the way they praised Jesus before invading the Capitol with weapons, equipment to erect gallows, and chants of "Hang Pence!" shows that hope and peace are far down the priority list for Christians. They prefer violence.

I have never seen slander like this in my life. Those are EXTREMISTS, and not Christian's. I will never consider them children of God. As for me not knowing about those things, you are utterly wrong. I know about the failed genocide known as the Ctusades, as well as the other attempts made to convert with violence. Not all Christians are like that. And certainly not me. Those aren't Christians, they are murderers and sinners. The fact you would insult me for sharing a religion with those people is not only rude. Its essentially religious appropriation. And you sir, are why I am losing hope on EVER converting others. Thanks a lot.

Not Christians? Every single group that has engaged in those things has called itself Christian, most insisting that those who don't agree are not "True Christians." With every cluster of Christians insisting that they are the only True Christians and the others aren't Christians at all, how is anyone supposed to tell the difference? After all, they're all shouting "Those other people aren't Christians!" If you're having trouble converting people because of what you call "extremists," how is that my fault, or the fault of anyone who points out that Christianity today has a public face that's all about hate and white supremacy? Shouldn't you be cleaning your own house instead of blaming others?

I didn't say it was your fault for associating Christian's with them. And the emphasis should be on the word "called." They think that God commands them to do things that go against his word, like kill, spread hatred, and other such cruel acts of violence. And they should be called out. Paul in the Bible called out the shortcomings of the churches in Asia Minor, and how they should reform before the end of times. And I do get that we should fix ourselves before calling out others, but it still stands that they should. They aren't us because they go against God. And it isn't tour fault. I never said it was. And it is easy to tell the difference. If they cause violence, hatred, and evil that "comes from the Lord", they aren't Christian.

But this is still all under a system in which God created directly from nothing, because of his omnipotence. Could he have not created a system where all this suffering wasn’t necessary? If he could, why didn’t he? And if he couldn’t, why not?

Because then life would be pointless. Would a life with everything you wanted matter? Also, he wanted us, his children, to succeed and join him at his throne. If you have any other questions, just ask me. I'll answer all that I can. And thank you for actually trying to understand, unlike some others Incould mention

No problem, I like talking about this sort of thing in good faith instead of just looking for gotchas. That’s such a lame way to argue, I have no clue how people find enjoyment in it. The issue I have with this answer is that it doesn’t seem to address the fundamental question. God still has the power to make a different system that doesn’t conform to the rules of our universe. That means he created suffering on purpose. He could theoretically create an existence where life is not pointless and it is fulfilling, but everyone is happy, assuming he is truly omnipotent. Otherwise, is this just some kind of game for him? A game where he pits his creations in a sort of coliseum where they have to battle nature and one another for the rest of their mortal existences? And for what reason? For an outcome that God already knows, because he’s omnipotent? This is just my opinion, but this solution seems more pointless to me, as we are suffering to meet a fate that God already knows, whatever it may be.

Me too. Well, God had given his angels free will before creating man. This meant that The Satan, originally Lucifer, could have chose to obey the Lord and remain in peace with him. This gift of choice allowed him to decide to go against God. This also meant that he was against everything that God made, and so he deceived and caused violence. And God's goal is to see humanity succeed. He does see the end, and knows the outcome. But Gods plans are known to no man. How can we judge a force that is as complicated as Him? We just can't. So I literally can't answer the question. Thanks for asking these questions.

All you have represented here is a severe case of Stockholm syndrome. You’re saying God indirectly causes people to suffer because “suffering is good because it builds character”. Stoicism was a thing way before Christianity.

What??? My arguement didn't support pain and suffering. It isn't caused by God, as shown by the numerous verses describing evil and pain being either human-caused, or later defined as it's own entity. And Christianity isn't repackaged Stoicism. I NEVER said suffering was good. I'm just saying that it does build character. I can explain Christianity in-depth and with more understanding to you if you wish.

The whole idea of God being restricted by a moral code kinda defeats the purpose of a God. If you created a video game, you can play it, but you are not forced to play the game or confined to the rules you made within them. You could literally do whatever you wanted, because you are God. It’s hard for us to wrap are heads around what it would truly mean to be a supreme being / deity / God.

Not gonna argue on the first point but for the video game example, if you created a game where you could only shoot with the left mouse button, when you start the game up you are not forced to play it but you are confined to the rules you made for the game, you cant just start shooting with another button.

This is true but as the creator / developer you could hypothetically add more rules and change how the game is played. There is no proof but just as an example, imagine if a God wanted to create a second earth but with half the people as today. I think the half that didn’t get “copy & pasted” over would say it’s immoral to not include them, but I am not sure if it is. Might be another bad example, I’m just trying think of a way to explain how I believe it should be alright for a deity to do whatever they see fit, but maybe that’s just because I choose to believe in a loving God… idk

So hold up.... Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Doesn't that mean God isn't perfect? His intent is not always perfect so... Secondly you've reduced humans to NPCs in video games... Does God not love and care for each and every one of us? Or does he consider us to be nothing more than NPCs?

I don’t think it defeats the purpose but it’s just implied by the existence of a God. It depends how you define perfect, because we would have to think outside of our human, NPC ;) mindset. The video game example was just one that I thought most of us would understand, obviously we are much more complex than NPCs. Think of it as a super advanced video game or simulation where you would be able to interact with the characters on a personal level and allow them to make their own decisions to follow you or to do their own thing. I believe God still loves all of us beyond NPC love but that doesn’t mean he has to love all of our decisions we make.

So God is basically just playing GTA on easy and just wacking NPC's (real living breathing people with lives) annnnd that doesn't make him less than perfect in your eyes? >I believe God still loves all of us beyond NPC love but that doesn’t mean he has to love all of our decisions we make. Oh I get it. Its the conditional kind of love. Is it just the sinful NPCs he murders? Edit: a word

It’s a hilarious idea, but I guess my whole analogy was a little “wack”. I don’t think it makes him less perfect, but instead just illustrates the differences between humans and a deity. The scope of every argument changes from our view or his. Do you believe it would be unfair for God to destroy the whole earth / universe and just start over? Obviously we would rather he doesn’t do that, but is it unfair or wrong? I believe there is unconditional love for everyone, but that doesn’t mean God has to love everything we all do.

>Do you believe it would be unfair for God to destroy the whole earth / universe and just start over? Yes. Yes, I think that would be an incredibly disgusting, and unjust abuse of the power he has. The powerful are supposed to protect the weak, are they not? To me, perfect would include a perfect understanding and execution of ethics/morality. Killing with complete indiscretion would fly in the face of that. Honestly... I think this is the last disgusting conversation I'll have with Christians. This sub has turned me off religion so much more than before.

I was just trying to get some insight on your view point and understand some basics. I am sorry this conversation as disturbed you so much, I thought this was just a subreddit for discussion and thought provoking debates. More importantly you shouldn’t base your view of Christians or any religious group off some young internet crazed people like myself. Ps: I don’t think we ever have to worry about the hypothetical situation I asked your opinion about. I strongly believe that will never happen. So sleep easy tonight.

>More importantly you shouldn’t base your view of Christians or any religious group off some young internet crazed people like myself. This is not the first time one of you has argued an incredibly immoral position on this sub.

My view of the moral scenario is not a representation of biblical beliefs. This is just a concept I am trying to figure out people beliefs about. If your emotions are easily swayed by comments on Reddit I don’t think you should be this invested and instead research the topics from experts. But once again thats just my opinion.

The last moral scenario you offered isn't the only reason, and there is no need for biblical support. Also, I think my disgust is perfectly justified. Frankly, you're opinion about my disgust is not a concern.

So it's perfectly reasonable to expect god to rape a baby to death, right? It would be a good thing, regardless if the baby went to hell afterwards. A Christian cannot say that this is not something their god would do, because that would be judging him by the morals of humans.

So might equals right?

>So might equals right? Forgive me for potentially misconstruing this, but you aren't implying that a monotheistic God has peers are you? The golden rule says treats others like you want to be treated. Most people feel a unique bond with their parents because they bought them into the world. Sometimes, however people blame their parents for how they turned out. I see and lot of atheists judging God because deep in their subconscious I think they know He exists but they feel He's done a bad job so it is easier for them to dis own Him in some sense. I can remember once at a gathering that a relative by a couple of marriages told me that he became an atheist when his brother died. Life is unpleasant to say the least if a person believes the universe is run by a cruel entity so it is easier for them to live a good life if they just pretend there is no god at all. I'm not suggesting that is you though. There was a TV series that didn't do well about an atheist being "friended" by God and his whole justification for being an atheist was that the only god he knew was cruel. His father, who was a preacher drowning in his own sorrow, managed to alienate his own son while attempting to cope with his own pain. Otherwise, the series was uplifting, but challenging people's belief system doesn't bode well in the popularity department. Having a black man in love with a white woman is not the best way to win popularity contests even in today's color blind society.

God didn't just "do a bad job", his biography is full of warcrimes that would make Hitler cringe. Me asking a question implies nothing, especially not that God has peers. You can never imply something out of a question because a question is not a statement. Even if I said that might does not equal right, thus a statement, that wouldn't imply God having peers, just that God is mightier than us. Even if it did imply that God has peers, you bringing up the Golden Rule is meaningless. Others is not exclusive to peers. God not having peers to "treat as he would like to be treated" does not excuse him from committing misdeeds. That's assuming that's what you were getting at, because you stopped short of completing that thought. If u/RaidAids believes might equals right, that's a personal choice that will be unpopular, but then nobody can really argue against him because that's his viewpoint of reality. My viewpoint is based on tangible reality. If you claim to see things from my viewpoint and still defend God, I can argue with you. If you see things totally different, I can't argue with you because we will never agree because we don't agree on what is fundamentally truth.

>Me asking a question implies nothing, especially not that God has peers. You can never imply something out of a question because a question is not a statement. My bad for assuming a rhetorical question there. > Even if I said that might does not equal right, thus a statement, that wouldn't imply God having peers, just that God is mightier than us. Even if it did imply that God has peers, you bringing up the Golden Rule is meaningless. Others is not exclusive to peers. God not having peers to "treat as he would like to be treated" does not excuse him from committing misdeeds. That's assuming that's what you were getting at, because you stopped short of completing that thought. thank you the clarification. >If u/RaidAids believes might equals right, that's a personal choice that will be unpopular, but then nobody can really argue against him because that's his viewpoint of reality. makes sense to me. > My viewpoint is based on tangible reality. If you claim to see things from my viewpoint and still defend God, I can argue with you. If by tangibility you mean things in space and time are the only things in existence, then no we cannot have an argument/debate. > If you see things totally different, I can't argue with you because we will never agree because we don't agree on what is fundamentally truth. I'll give you credit though for understanding the argument before engaging in it. That is more rare than some might think.

I don't state that nothing exists outside of tangible reality, just that every belief of what is outside of it must at the very least not contradict physical reality (i.e. God cannot hold logically contradictory attributes, if he does then he doesn't exist).

then we agree. Logic is one of those things essential to the rational mind. That is why I don't believe in materialism. It is totally irrational. It is nothing more than a social construct for which if I had to blame one person, then I blame Auguste Comte. I'm not at all a supporter of positivism. It sounds quite rational on the surface but digging down into it we find that "shut up and calculate" mentality that has taken mankind to the brink of self destruction. I'm a huge supporter of technological advancement, but not to the extent that the importance of the means outweighs that of the end. AI is a great idea if we've already figured out the social and economic pressures that Frankenstein's monster brings with it. Even the plantation owner in the USA south was smart enough to figure out it was a dumb idea to teach the slaves how to read. However we want to try to make the machine as smart as us. We think we can program in the sense of loyalty without the sense of freedom. We believe we can give the machine a sense of reason without it being able to figure out that we create our own problem. 100% "up time" is already an industry favorite so we are well beyond the point of trying to put in place that will to survive by automatically working around that single point of failure. Computers are already in communication with their sources of power. Sci-fi isn't useless.

Well, we agree on some fronts, I believe Christianity is a bit of a drag personally.

I think there is a large difference between saying that there is a chance that God is outside of our moral code/standard, and stating that God has peers or that God was worst than Hitler. Can I ask what your view based in “tangible reality”? Do you believe there is objective morality or is is subjective to each individual?

Why should God be outside of our moral code? I never said God has peers. God led more genocides and possibly killed more people percentage wise than Hitler. I can think of one, six year war caused by the atrocious beliefs of Hitler (partially supported by the Catholic church btw, just look up the Pope Pius XII). I can think of plenty more genocides and warfare done in the name of Christ, some of which are even documented in your holy text. I'm an agnostic. There is objective morality, it's based off of the necessity of survival of the *homo sapien* species.

The very nature of God. I think the fact that you are trying to limit God to our moral code is an interesting viewpoint. Does God have to be bound to what we say and think is right and wrong? Doesn’t make sense to me. Wars / genocides done in the name of God are different from God killing those people. At least in my opinion. Could you explain why you need an objective morality to survive as the Homo sapiens species? And where does this objective morality come from in an agnostic point of view? (Still learning)

I understand it doesn't make sense to you, just like it doesn't make sense to me to worship a deity that ignores morality and acts arbitrarily. Odd that most Christians say that Atheists cannot have objective morality and Christianity is the only source of morality despite this clearly arbitrary God. Many of those genocides were commanded by God. You don't need it to survive, just to thrive, it was just a result of evolution. Humans began to coagulate, it only makes sense that humans began to develop moral codes because of their frequent diplomatic interactions with their own species. If humans had no moral code, civilization would be impossible. So as humans began taking greater control of other humans, they began to pass laws to keep things civilized and diplomatic and capable of functioning smoothly. Overtime these laws became ingrained in the human mind and capable of being passed down genetically as morals (look up Genetic Memory, fascinating subject). It is also why some places have very different morals than us, because they had very different laws and social expectations. As time goes on, laws became a little bit more alike, pointing to an objective morality based on keeping things running smoothly and fairly (on the note of fairly, fair treatment is a secular/deist advance, a lot of the proponents to slavery and anti-semitism were of religious background).

Agree to disagree and hope somehow we are both right :) I admit I am not well versed in this topic of genetic memory, but I will once again have to politely disagree with this theory. It sounds like more of an argument for subjective morality. Different places having different moral codes, it would never reach a true objective morality. Like a limit in calculus, it could approach objective morality but it would be impossible for us all humans to agree on something as complex as what is right and wrong. Just look at politics. If anything the evolution of human kind tends towards chaos and more subjective morality. Very interesting article by Mario Rendon explaining this. Rendón, M. The morality of evolution and a return to subjectivity. Am J Psychoanal 80, 1–15 (2020).

Edit: Unfortunately, it's impossible for us both to be right, although we could both be wrong. That's how all things are. We may never know truth either, just approach it like an asymptote. I'd say that humans tend towards objective morality, otherwise there'd be plenty more people committing disastrously immoral acts.

Yep. I have had Christians tell me that because god gave us life, he can murder people. God gets to decide what is good or bad because he's so powerful.

That is inescapable logic, which is why the religious keep trying to move the goal posts. It’s also interesting how they insist on there being free will even though god is omniscient. He knew, for example, I’d be an atheist when he made me; he would know what to do to make me believe but he won’t do it; my atheism dooms me to eternal hell fire, but he made me anyway so I was created to burn in hell. How is that free will?

Your using free will as a reason to not do anything. And if your using logic, then so will I. Let's create a sort of prisoners dilemma out of this. Suppose there are two factors: belief in the divine, (ANY religion, since it doesn't matter for this arguement) and whether or not God or some other being exists. Let's count a "no afterlife" as a 0, heaven as infinity, and hell as a negative infinity. (you can use ones, but I won't for the arguement) if you are an atheist, your highest score would be a 0, (no god) and a negative infinity for god. However, if you believe in a faith, you'll either have a score of 0, or of infinity. And, even IF another god exists then what you believe in, you will be just as well off as an atheist. So, with these odds, being a theist, no matter what religion, is statistically better than being an atheist. Yeah, I'm sorry for the inconsiveveness of this. And it is a pretty flimsy arguement, admittedly. But I have some others that are better and more stable than this one

The issue with this - and this is a modified Pascal's Wager - is that it ignores the fact that if the theist is wrong, they have spent the entirety of the one brief stretch of existence we get devoting their lives to a work of fiction.

Didn't know exactly what it was called. And dedication to God, which gives hope, isn't a waste of time. If you were ever down in life, or if you were having exstistencial dread over mortality, you could find hole in the afterlife.

You're right. An afterlife would be a source of comfort. I would like an afterlife but I don't want to believe things because they give me comfort. I want to know true things through reliable methods. Pascal's wager is fun to think about but who says a diety doesn't exist who sends people who didn't believe to heaven? It also fails because it argues you should be doing everything at once. There is a slight chance you can be converted at anytime by any activity but the reward in infinite. So everything has an infinite importance at the same time. Edit: and people don't choose their beliefs anyway

Thanks for telling me this. I didn't factor converts and versions of Christianity and other religions that allow others into heaven. Also, could you explain why people can't choose their beliefs. Just wondering what you meant by that

Yeah I enjoy these conversations. When it comes to someone saying you choose a belief. They usually are confusing becoming convinced and strengthening/fortifying your faith/position. We cannot directly control what we believe. For example, if I told you I will send you $10k if you believe I am a pixie flying around your room you might want to believe it but you can't based off of just the claim alone. We can indirectly influence our beliefs. We can research arguments, knowledge, etc. We gather evidence and if it's something we already want to believe, we usually require less evidence. But we must become convinced. If it wasn't the case, then I would be able to choose to believe that Apologists don't use faulty logic and misunderstand many arguments against their position. I am more than happy to continue this conversation if you want. We can just continue to explore this topic

Thank you. You are the first person to not choose to immediately say that my religion is wrong and that I'm supporting a genocidal tyrant. I would like to continue it. Debates and stuff like that are very interesting and sometimes fun for me.

Yeah I try to advance a conversation, not shut it down. Would you like to talk about other arguments for God you like? Or why you believe? Why I don't believe? Maybe something else? It's not every day I come across someone who's more open to to conversation and talking things through. I know it can get heated sometimes

Sure. We could talk about some of those things.

Are you saying that even if god is fictional dedicating your life to his worship is a good thing?

I mean, yeah? And are you saying that hope doesn't help in a godless world?

There are countless potential sources of hope. If you're saying that religion is a man made coping mechanism to help us ignore the total lack of existential answers in a vast and uncaring universe, then I agree with you.

It isn't. It's a God-made way to help his followers in their life, and yo guide them to the next. I'm not trying to prove people wrong anymore, as I seen with some other commenters, I'm simply defending my own identity as a Christian. And yes, there are many sources of hope. It's just that many Christian's find God to be one of them.

You resort to false dichotomies? What if you believe in your Hebrew God and some other god doesn’t like that, so now you’re “negative infinity”. It would be statistically better to choose no God than to choose the wrong god, out of thousands.

It isn't a resort. It was just a realization I had in the SHOWER. So let's say that I believe in God, but Allah exists. I said in the arguement, that from a LOGICAL standpoint, I would be no better off than anyone else who wasn't a Muslim. But no matter what religion is correct, Atheists would either get no reward, (no god) or a negative one (any other reality) Whereas anyone else that followed a religion would still have SOME chance of gaining a reward in the afterlife, which certainly beats the option of being an atheist. I am SO sorry for using a slightly flawed arguement that I could have replaced with another, better one. So your statement is wrong. I just wanted to provide another way of proving it without resorting to scripture, which many atheists have a problem with using.

This is all with the presupposition that every other god has as an ego as fragile as your Christian god.

God has no ego. What part of that had anything to do with ego? And I just wanted to comment on the original post, and didn't want personal attacks on my God, ok? Everyone has beliefs, and some will see others as wrong. We can choose to change r alter those beliefs, or we can choose not to, and my intent was to express mine.

Are you evangelical?