If God didn't exist, should we all kill each other?

[Theocrat]

Rebuking Ridicule

And I am not surprised, but still disappointed, that someone should bring up Christian-bashing in a thread that asserts that without God one cannot be moral and would be prone to killing others, when others are only logically disputing the immorality of the very book and diety that is supposed to provide us that moral compass to not commit murder.

I'm still surprised that "atheists" think they have the moral audacity and philosophical justification to judge any action in the Bible as immoral, given the fact that they have no objective basis to judge anything as moral. Why should Christians accept your moral compass as the ultimate standard for morality? What puts your moral authority above that of the inerrant, infallible, and inspired word of God?

"Atheism" teaches that there is no objective morality, nor is morality made of molecules in nature. So I don't even understand how they make moral judgments and expect those judgments to be taken seriously in terms of their own worldview. You say the Bible is immoral for God telling His people to wipe out an entire nation, but so what? Who cares what you think about that? You are not the final authority to judge God (not to mention you fail to give those passages any serious theological exegesis to explain themselves). Period.

In order to judge between good and evil, you need an absolute standard to differentiate good from evil. That necessitates a moral law, but you can't have a moral law without a moral Lawgiver. You deny that such a moral Lawgiver (God) exists, so you can't have a moral law. If there is no moral law, you can't differentiate between good and evil. So what is your complaint?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This video answers the questions in the OP:



And yes, I've read the OP and it's only 5min this time so fking watch it or just don't bother replying to me.

lolz @ schizophrenic debate.

 

[Bruno]

I'm still surprised that "atheists" think they have the moral audacity and philosophical justification to judge any action in the Bible as immoral, given the fact that they have no objective basis to judge anything as moral. Why should Christians accept your moral compass as the ultimate standard for morality? What puts your moral authority above that of the inerrant, infallible, and inspired word of God?

"Atheism" teaches that there is no objective morality, nor is morality made of molecules in nature. So I don't even understand how they make moral judgments and expect those judgments to be taken seriously in terms of their own worldview. You say the Bible is immoral for God telling His people to wipe out an entire nation, but so what? Who cares what you think about that? You are not the final authority to judge God (not to mention you fail to give those passages any serious theological exegesis to explain themselves). Period.

In order to judge between good and evil, you need an absolute standard to differentiate good from evil. That necessitates a moral law, but you can't have a moral law without a moral Lawgiver. You deny that such a moral Lawgiver (God) exists, so you can't have a moral law. If there is no moral law, you can't differentiate between good and evil. So what is your complaint?

I do not claim to be an atheist. I do not believe in the Christian God as described in the Bible, or any other God I have yet learned of. I am a non-believer, yet convinced. To call myself an atheist would mean that I would be in a box with other atheists.

I do not tell you to live by my moral code. The question was whether without God's moral code, would I commit murder. I would not, and cited my reasons.

My "audicity" is in direct opposition to the "audacity" of Christians, who point to the Bible and their God as the moral compass. I refute those sources, and question the morality of the God who claims moral high ground over us, and listed many examples of acts I consider immoral in the Bible which were either condoned or conducted by your infallable God.

Maybe you can provide the "theological exegesis" to explain those numerous passages. I am reading them for the context, and yet can't understand why God sent two bears to kill 42 kids. Why Lot's wife had to die for turning around. Why innocent children have to die for the "sins" of their parents. Seems immoral to me. But then, that is by my moral code.

I do not deny that a moral lawgiver exists. If you are looking for my moral lawgiver, I am he. I choose in mind what is immoral. My morals are likely to differ from others. I have previously listed many things I find immoral and where the line is drawn, which also align with general libertarian beliefs on those topics.

For the record, I do not hate Christians. "Some of my best friends are Christians." I just think they are wrong, but their hearts are in the right place.

 

[AFPVet]

I believe that morality is not taught—but is genetically encoded.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm still surprised that "atheists" think they have the moral audacity and philosophical justification to judge any action in the Bible as immoral, given the fact that they have no objective basis to judge anything as moral. Why should Christians accept your moral compass as the ultimate standard for morality? What puts your moral authority above that of the inerrant, infallible, and inspired word of God?

"Atheism" teaches that there is no objective morality, nor is morality made of molecules in nature. So I don't even understand how they make moral judgments and expect those judgments to be taken seriously in terms of their own worldview. You say the Bible is immoral for God telling His people to wipe out an entire nation, but so what? Who cares what you think about that? You are not the final authority to judge God (not to mention you fail to give those passages any serious theological exegesis to explain themselves). Period.

In order to judge between good and evil, you need an absolute standard to differentiate good from evil. That necessitates a moral law, but you can't have a moral law without a moral Lawgiver. You deny that such a moral Lawgiver (God) exists, so you can't have a moral law. If there is no moral law, you can't differentiate between good and evil. So what is your complaint?

But even the most respected "experts" on theology disagree on the meanings of Biblical texts. If individuals cannot decide how to judge their relationship to God (or if he exists), then we no longer have individual relationships to God, thus rendering any respect/worship/etc for him meaningless, since the whole of humanity would be the exact same. If you mean that he simply doesn't have the expertise to make a compelling argument that would convince others, you have a good point.

 

[Bruno]

If you mean that he simply doesn't have the expertise to make a compelling argument that would convince others, you have a good point.

If he meant the Bible makes a compelling argument as to the existence of the morals to convince others to live by, then he doesn't have a good point, either.

 

[Justinjj1]

And here we see, people, the result of Christian extremism. Utter ignorance and stupidity. Nobody respond to this garbage please, you are just giving the idiot more pleasure.

What a stupid thread.

^This. What is with this forum lately? It's like it's been invaded by overzealous Huck's Army rejects.

 

[Maximus]

I do not claim to be an atheist. I do not believe in the Christian God as described in the Bible, or any other God I have yet learned of. I am a non-believer, yet convinced. To call myself an atheist would mean that I would be in a box with other atheists.

I do not tell you to live by my moral code. The question was whether without God's moral code, would I commit murder. I would not, and cited my reasons.

My "audicity" is in direct opposition to the "audacity" of Christians, who point to the Bible and their God as the moral compass. I refute those sources, and question the morality of the God who claims moral high ground over us, and listed many examples of acts I consider immoral in the Bible which were either condoned or conducted by your infallable God.

Maybe you can provide the "theological exegesis" to explain those numerous passages. I am reading them for the context, and yet can't understand why God sent two bears to kill 42 kids. Why Lot's wife had to die for turning around. Why innocent children have to die for the "sins" of their parents. Seems immoral to me. But then, that is by my moral code.

I do not deny that a moral lawgiver exists. If you are looking for my moral lawgiver, I am he. I choose in mind what is immoral. My morals are likely to differ from others. I have previously listed many things I find immoral and where the line is drawn, which also align with general libertarian beliefs on those topics.

For the record, I do not hate Christians. "Some of my best friends are Christians." I just think they are wrong, but their hearts are in the right place.

Those are a problem for fundamentalist Christians. Christian traditions that take the Bible in context have no issues as a result of any of the verses you posted. Many were used as allegories to the spiritual life, many were written down as history "the way they should have done it" (rather than actually did). Anyways, I don't know of any Christian tradition that actually advocates for genocide. Clearly these verses, even if they were as bad as you are making them (which not all are, within context), have no influence in the Christian tradition.

 

[Bruno]

Those are a problem for fundamentalist Christians. Christian traditions that take the Bible in context have no issues as a result of any of the verses you posted. Many were used as allegories to the spiritual life, many were written down as history "the way they should have done it" (rather than actually did). Anyways, I don't know of any Christian tradition that actually advocates for genocide. Clearly these verses, even if they were as bad as you are making them (which not all are, within context), have no influence in the Christian tradition.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, Maxiumus.

That is one of the issues I always had with the Bible since I was a child learning scripture. The Bible is either the direct word of God or isn't, stories are either exactly as they happened or never happened at all and are simply allegories. Opinions differ, and change over the time. Scripture is either supposed to be taken verbatim, or in context. Some stories are "that's they way it happened", and others are "the way it should have happened", as you said. People point to single verses out of context to advocate morality by saying what God feels humans should do, while other verses that are contractictory or inconvenient are downplayed or dismissed completely.

Did God really send two bears to maul all those children? Or was it just a story of what "should have happened" to show children not to mock adults? Either way, it is disturbing to me as the guide of what is moral and what is not. It is one verse of 2 Kings, but if it didn't really happen that way, does that not dismiss the other historical descriptions in 2 Kings? I've read the explanation here, but it still isn't very comforting to answer the question of the morality of the act.

It all just seems to be whatever is convenient for a particular church at a particular time in history is used out of the Bible, and everything else is ignored, including the entire Old Testament for many people.

 

[Maximus]

Thank you for sharing your perspective, Maxiumus.

That is one of the issues I always had with the Bible since I was a child learning scripture. The Bible is either the direct word of God or isn't, stories are either exactly as they happened or never happened at all and are simply allegories. Opinions differ, and change over the time. Scripture is either supposed to be taken verbatim, or in context. Some stories are "that's they way it happened", and others are "the way it should have happened", as you said. People point to single verses out of context to advocate morality by saying what God feels humans should do, while other verses that are contractictory or inconvenient are downplayed or dismissed completely.

Did God really send two bears to maul all those children? Or was it just a story of what "should have happened" to show children not to mock adults? Either way, it is disturbing to me as the guide of what is moral and what is not. It is one verse of 2 Kings, but if it didn't really happen that way, does that not dismiss the other historical descriptions in 2 Kings? I've read the explanation here, but it still isn't very comforting to answer the question of the morality of the act.

It all just seems to be whatever is convenient for a particular church at a particular time in history is used out of the Bible, and everything else is ignored, including the entire Old Testament for many people.

There is a middle path between both camps. The Jewish/Christian tradition never really approached Scripture as being written down verbatim by God. The verbatim idea probably comes from Protestant Christianity and its doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". Before that, Christian's always looked at the Bible through the lens of the Christian community. Seeking the context of the text, commentary of various people, etc. The Bible is without error in faith and morals, it is not free from error in history or science, because the Bible was not meant to be a strict history or science text, but God's revelation to man. Here is a good article on the issue: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea4.asp

 

[Bruno]

There is a middle path between both camps. The Jewish/Christian tradition never really approached Scripture as being written down verbatim by God. The verbatim idea probably comes from Protestant Christianity and its doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". Before that, Christian's always looked at the Bible through the lens of the Christian community. Seeking the context of the text, commentary of various people, etc. The Bible is without error in faith and morals, it is not free from error in history or science, because the Bible was not meant to be a strict history or science text, but God's revelation to man. Here is a good article on the issue: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea4.asp

Thank you for that article, I appreciate you sharing it.

It mostly addresses the issue of historical and scientific errors that may have since been proven not to be true, and are not necessarily problematic, such as Abiathar listed as high priest when his father was instead.

The 1905 Pontifical Biblical Commission appears to be making a convenient announcement, thousands of years after the books were written, without advising the reader of the Bible which stories may be allegorical, and which ones are to be taking at their literal meaning.

"In regards to the historical elements, in 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that at times—with solid arguments and conformity to the sense of the Church—it is possible to conclude that the sacred writers did not intend to give a true and strict account of history. They " proposed rather to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the literal or historical signification of the words" (qtd. in John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, 33)."

The conclusion of the article still brings me back to the point that stories in the Bible are said to be true, yet, in my opinion at least, provide moral dilemmas, even when the context is considered. They did for me when I considered myself a Christian. And that many Christians single out verses out of context when it suits them, and ignore others when it does not, dismissing them as allegories or "that's they way things were back then, they didn't know any better."

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond . . . this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. (20)"

"Many more examples have been used to argue that the Bible contains error, but every one is answerable. Therefore, we can repeat with humility the words of St. Augustine, "And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand" (Letter LXXXII, 3)."

 

[Maximus]

Thank you for that article, I appreciate you sharing it.

It mostly addresses the issue of historical and scientific errors that may have since been proven not to be true, and are not necessarily problematic, such as Abiathar listed as high priest when his father was instead.

The 1905 Pontifical Biblical Commission appears to be making a convenient announcement, thousands of years after the books were written, without advising the reader of the Bible which stories may be allegorical, and which ones are to be taking at their literal meaning.

"In regards to the historical elements, in 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that at times—with solid arguments and conformity to the sense of the Church—it is possible to conclude that the sacred writers did not intend to give a true and strict account of history. They " proposed rather to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the literal or historical signification of the words" (qtd. in John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, 33)."

The conclusion of the article still brings me back to the point that stories in the Bible are said to be true, yet, in my opinion at least, provide moral dilemmas, even when the context is considered. They did for me when I considered myself a Christian. And that many Christians single out verses out of context when it suits them, and ignore others when it does not, dismissing them as allegories or "that's they way things were back then, they didn't know any better."

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond . . . this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. (20)"

"Many more examples have been used to argue that the Bible contains error, but every one is answerable. Therefore, we can repeat with humility the words of St. Augustine, "And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand" (Letter LXXXII, 3)."

I agree with you, and thanks for reading the article. That's why I could never belong to a fundamentalist Church, because it would be too much for me to comprehend the entire Bible on my own, especially with many verses and stories that you have described. That's why I trust in the Church to constantly re-examine and interpret the Scirptures. It's easy to take the Bible literally when you don't know any better, but when you learn more about science, you may have to go back and re-examine what the author is intending with his text (truth can never contradict truth). When you learn more about the culture and language that the text was originally written in, you may realize that the author was using humor, sarcasm, or allegory. It brings me back to the Catechism (Catholic) which says, "The Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book.’ Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God [(Jesus)], a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living” (CCC 108). I prefer this approach to Scripture in its relation to Christ.

 

[jmdrake]

Thanks, for the heads up. The irony in his request is that Ayn Rand was an atheist

The double irony is that I'm pretty sure "low preference guy" is an atheist too, or at least agnostic. (Could be wrong). He wasn't objecting to you writing God out of the equation of morality. He was objecting to you including morality, even evolutionary morality, in the equation of "Why it's a good idea for people to do good things" or rather "Why it's irrational to murder".

 

[torchbearer]

history shows that believing in a god leads people to kill others, especially if they don't worship the same god.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh ya, I forgot, Christians don't like to have any fun so they forget how much fun all the atheists are having partying and getting laid

Apparently life is so bad for Christians trying to live up to their creator so they can be in heaven that there is no other reason to be here

j/k.. but seriously..

I think you misunderstand the whole point of Christianity. It's not supposed to be "I'd doing right because I want to go to heaven or I don't want to go to hell." It's Christ living inside changing the Christian's mind about what is "fun". Here's an example. I know this young man who got into a fight with his girlfriend because she wanted to go clubbing and he didn't want to go. He told her straight up that he thought clubbing was boring. She retorted that all he wanted to do was to "Sit around smoking all day." From a Christian perspective neither is wholesome. Almost everyone now agrees that smoking is bad for you. He certainly knows he needs to quit. It's not a "heaven or hell" thing. He needs for smoking to become unappealing to him and for something wholesome to take its place. That will improve his life expectancy here on earth. Jesus said "I am come that ye may have life and have it more abundantly". I don't think partying and "getting laid" every chance you get leads to an abundant life. Sure it's fun. (Well I never found partying fun. Just a shortcut to hopefully getting laid.) But how fulfilling is it long term? I've had a chance now to work with prisoners, some of whom are facing serious prison time simply because they picked the wrong friends to have "fun" with. I'm talking about young people from good homes. And even if you don't end up with the most extreme consequences, what about the kind of mark you leave on the world? I would much rather be this guy:

Than this guy:

 

[jmdrake]

history shows that believing in a god leads people to kill others, especially if they don't worship the same god.

And what god did these men believe in?

The problem isn't belief in a god. The problem is seeking to force your belief (or your non belief) on others.

 

[Bruno]

I would much rather be this guy:




Than this guy:

Two polar extremes, I lol'd.

 

[reillym]

Most anti-religious leaders sought to *replace* god with themselves. It was a religion, just like Christianity or Judaism or Islam. Just with a different ruler. Same rules, same subjugation of the lower/middle class by upper leaders/pope/clergy/whatever.

 

[pcosmar]

history shows that believing in a god leads people to kill others, especially if they don't worship the same god.

Actually, history shows that people kill each other regardless of what their "religion" teaches.
It also shows the both religion and lack of or perversion of religion are used by leaders to promote killing for their desired purpose.