Why do Christians defend the immorality of the Christian god as depicted in the Bible ?
― Christopher Hitchens,
What is immorality from an atheistic perspective? Why is that wrong? From an atheistic perspective, you t can't really say anything is moral, or immoral because you have no basis for morality. Your worldview bases off the fact that we are protoplasm, bags of stardust. So what if bags of stardust do things to other bags of stardust? Who cares? It's meaningless!! That's what atheists hold on to. So what if the Christian God does stuff? To say something is immoral goes against the very worldview that you hold, and it's a direct contradiction to what you believe because after all we are just stardust. So if we are stardust then don't act like it's wrong when there is a mass shooting, or say it's wrong when certain things happen because you're contradicting your worldview.
I think a better way to ask the question would be to point out that the Christian God as depicted in the bible partakes in/endorses things which Christians claim to be immoral.
Another question: Does God's word alone make things right or wrong? If so morality is arbitrary, if not, then morality comes from something other than God. (That's not my own argument, but I can't remember who I heard it from)
What is immorality from an atheistic perspective?
An act that contravenes the well being of another person.
Why is that wrong?
Depends on your basis. We're physical being in a physical universe and our actions have physical consequences governed by the laws of physics. If we are to share space cooperatively we have to concede that these consequences may have an effect on somebody else sharing this space.
If we're even talking about morality, then I'm comfortable that it's conceded we care about the well being of other people. Otherwise why bother.
Once the ground rules have been established objective moral evaluations can be made from this framework. It's a moral system whose foundations are the people participating within it, rather than some external force.
you t can't really say anything is moral, or immoral because you have no basis for morality.
See above. Once we have established the ground rules, objective moral assessments can be made.
Your worldview bases off the fact that we are protoplasm, bags of stardust. So what if bags of stardust do things to other bags of stardust? Who cares?
We're thinking being who are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Civilized societies are predicated on the fact that most of us understand this and care enough to not act in a way that goes against the well being of another person. So I care. And so do lots of other atheists.
That's what atheists hold on to.
So what if the Christian God does stuff? To say something is immoral goes against the very worldview that you hold, and it's a direct contradiction to what you believe because after all we are just stardust.
So if we are stardust then don't act like it's wrong when there is a mass shooting, or say it's wrong when certain things happen because you're contradicting your worldview.
Wrong again, see above.
Don't strawman all atheists with your complete misrepresentation of what we all think human beings are and what that means.
I'm an atheist, and I've just demonstrated what can be claimed to be wrong or right from my worldview.
The first sentence is really frustrating in itself. How can you even say that we don't have morals. Of course we do, we have empathy, we know how it feels to be hurt, or we can at least imagine. If your silly book is the only reason you have morals then you don't deserve to be human. What do you say to every other religious person in the world who believes that you don't have morals because you don't follow their holy book? Do they have any sense of morality? To even say that the Bible is the only reason people have morals is stupid. People had morals before the Bible. The HUMANS who wrote the Bible must have had morals, right?
I say you don't have morals because of the worldview that you hold which makes no sense at all. That feeling that you have when you know it's wrong is actually the image of God reflecting out of you. You see everyone has that exact same feeling. Deep down inside of us God's morals are inside of us all, but people like you and others have an active suppression of the truth with the unrighteousness. My morals do come from Jesus Christ Himself and His Word shows us what is morally right and wrong.
When lib protected groups do "immoral" activity, libs call it.... antifacism. Maybe God is "antifacist".
Now, as an atheist who doesn't believe in any such thing as objective morality, but rather "survival of the fittest", define "immorality" for us.
Now let me explain something to you as an avid follower of the late Christopher Hitchens as a Conservative, something Hitchens, not a Bible scholar, was ignorant on.
They genocided groups who were sacrificing children to Baal(zebub) by cooking them alive. Example? The Canaanites. Seeing their practices, it wouldn't have taken God for me or you to have slaughtered them all.
The Bible doesn't command anyone to take slaves, but rather, tells the Jews how to treat their slaves that they already have during a time when most every culture on Earth had them.
Lib groups or their antics do not interest me ; regards god and his nature I'm allowing that a good does exist but the nature of that god as depicted in the bible is evil .
Why would you be interested in my views on morality ?
Also I've never once used the term survival of the fittest .
Hitchens actually was pretty good on the bible but why should a Christian scholars word be taken as the last word on what the bible actually means ?
Christianity has 30, 000 different denominations worlwide and they all disagree with each other on minute details in the bible .
God slaughters and sanctions slavery because its in his nature to do so as in he is an evil god
Now, as an atheist who doesn't believe in any such thing as objective morality, but rather "survival of the fittest", define "immorality" for us.
I'm an atheist.. That means there is NO God.. It does NOT mean I HATE God.. The person you're calling an atheist ISN'T anything close to being an atheist. He's ANTI God.. He HATES religion, and he HATES Christianity..
That's WAY, WAY, WAY different than REAL atheists.. We don't HATE anybody.. He's a person who speaks for HATRED.. I'd NEVER ask him about the atheist view on morality..
Look.. If I had grown up in a church where the priest RAPES young boys, I'd HATE God too..
I don't believe in god you idiot , I don't hate religion I just don't believe it , I don't hate Christianity I'm an opponent of it's beliefs .
I'm married to a Christian you fucking idiot .
You hate the Irish you're a lying two faced fuck who brands everyone a nazi or a racist whilst mocking anyone who's not a narrow minded bigot like you
You're not an atheist you're angry with god you've said so before ,
You hate religious people and detest those who practice it , you and your type push your hate filled agenda as reaction to your anger at the god you keep saying you don't believe ,you've admitted this in the past
Priests did indeed rape young men and women in my country and it would take a low piece of dirt like you to again bring your seething hatred of the Irish into the equation yet again
I don't hate god you dumb fuck I'm an atheist
But I challenge the assertion that the Christian god is good , I claim the god of Christianity is evil and he is carrying out acts of evil because its in his nature to do so .
If indeed that is the stance Christians take on why god would act "immorally " as in for a greater good my statement regarding his nature still stands and is just as "reasonable "
You are correct, but if you hold that view surely you can't make any moral evaluations with such a basis?
If you believe that God allows proximately evil acts in service of an ultimately moral good then you would be in no position to save a drowning child, for instance, as you would believe that it will ultimately result in good, or at least you couldn't know that it wont.
"You are correct, but if you hold that view surely you can't make any moral evaluations with such a basis?"
We can make moral evaluations, however we need to be aware that our evaluations are based on incomplete information and thus are flawed.
"If you believe that God allows proximately evil acts in service of an ultimately moral good then you would be in no position to save a drowning child, for instance, as you would believe that it will ultimately result in good, or at least you couldn't know that it wont."
If you believe every event is the will of God and that will of God is good, then this may necessitate inaction, however what if God isn't immediately responsible for every single event? In the case of supposed biblical acts of God, we are assuming that these acts actually are the proximate result of God's action. While this is an unjustified assumption, we assume it because of the context of the debate. I wouldn't assume God was responsible for a random encounter with a dying child, though even if I did, perhaps the reason I encountered them was so that I would save the child? Apologies if you weren't making the point that I'm refuting here.
If you're talking about the fact that I am unaware of the ultimate effect that saving that child's life will have, on average it will be a good thing to save a drowning child. This is because I'm assuming humans overall are morally neutral, which may be incorrect but let's not complicate things further. The effect, on average, that a child will have on others is neutral and thus can be ignored. We look then not to the ultimate effect of saving the child to guide our action but to the proximate positive effect of saving a child from drowning. While we cannot know the actual result of our action, we can know in this way if our action will on average produce a net positive or negative effect on conscious experience.
Good Winston as always I can rely on you for an interesting exchange
If what you stated was in fact true we can look closer at an event like the biblical flood and anylyse reasonably what " moral " good came from it as enough time has passed surely to make a judgement ?
No doubt at this stage the Christian can invoke the " mystery card "as in god works in mysterious ways ; it's remarkable that believers who say one cannot know the mind of god collectively know his exact intentions when faced with tricky questions.
I claim the Christian god as depicted in the bible is an evil god .
If I allow that a god does in fact exist I'm asking why a belief in an all powerful all -good god is more reasonable than belief in an all powerful all- evil god ?
"If what you stated was in fact true we can look closer at an event like the biblical flood and anylyse reasonably what " moral " good came from it as enough time has passed surely to make a judgement ? "
Well if I remember correctly the antediluvian world was being run by the half-demon spawn of fallen angels and humans, so it could well be justified.
"No doubt at this stage the Christian can invoke the " mystery card "as in god works in mysterious ways ; it's remarkable that believers who say one cannot know the mind of god collectively know his exact intentions when faced with tricky questions. "
I get that it can be used to shut down debate but I actually think it can also be a legitimate counterpoint to references to old-testament evil deeds. If God knows everything and is good, it makes sense that any evil deeds he partook in would have been in service of a moral end.
"If I allow that a god does in fact exist I'm asking why a belief in an all powerful all -good god is more reasonable than belief in an all powerful all- evil god ?"
Or a morally neutral God, it simply depends on what logic and evidence you use. If your basis for belief is a book that also states that God is good then you will probably believe God is good. If we view good as superior to evil and God as the most superior being it could also make sense to think that God would be good. Alternatively one could view the world as mostly good, mostly bad or neutral which also would shape one's view of God's morality.
but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.
Well... since we're just animals, morality is just some bs term used by atheists like some invisible, mythological fairy sword. (Mind you, the word "morality" is not in the Bible) And if we're "just mammals", why would any god give a flying rat's tailend about a subjective, atheist nondefined version of "morality"?
God isn't some absolute zero. Like atheists, God can do what He sees fit, pick who He wants, tell you to "screw" yourself, toss you in the trash, kick your ass, destroy the planet, die for sins, destroy the devil, take a nap, ride a unicorn, swim with the fishes, quantumize our reality via space and time, jump over the moon, eat a dead oppossum, try to confuse you, manifest in three persons, love, hate, eat, starve, fly, walk, part the sea, ascend into Heaven, live a human life, be a spirit, be a kitten, ride a rainbow, use alegorical language, speak plainly, test you, test himself, judge, show mercy, show wrath, be attacked by atheists, laugh at them, sit down, stand up, or even pick a bail of cotton.
There's a God of this world who'd kill, steal, destroy anyone for any reason, but would happily use you to help his cause, all before destroying you out of morbid intelect. And there's a god who would suffer to demonstrate love for those who choose him and vica versa. According to the Bible, we all have our hearts firmly attached to one of the two. I'd prefer the latter. God and Satan aren't "polar opposites". They aren't cold vs hot. They are two individuals with two different views/opinions. In many cases they fully agree with each other. In other cases they do not agree. Which one is good, bad or "other" depends simply on which side of the aisle you agree with, much like conservative, liberal or independent. There are things Muslims say are immoral/moral that most atheists disagree with. Is it ever moral to genocide? Depends on what and who's being genocided and why. Is it immoral to take child brides? Not in Islam. So is it or isn't it? Why or why not? 2 billion Muslims say no. Is it moral to kill children knowing they will grow up to kill your children as adults if you are omniscient? Depends who you ask. Is it moral to kill gays and adulterers? In Islam it's how you keep people moral. Like ANTIFA, who claims to be "antifacist", Muslims claim stoning adulterers is being "anti-immorality". So who's right? They say they are. So they see atheists as evil, and atheists see killing adulterers as evil. Who's right? Depends who you ask. It's all a matter of your perspective, which isn't a magically objective perspective. And finally, if you could see the future, as Bible God can, if the means justify the ends, what does "morality" mean if the means gets the desired end result? If not genociding the Canaanites ends with a horrid, undesirable result, and you can see the future, are you "morally bound" to destroy them? If allowing Hitler to exist is the only way to some positive finality or lesson, are you then, as an omniscient being, "morally bound" to allow Hitler to exist? Are you immoral if you kill him and prevent the Holocaust? It's semantics when omniscience enters the equation.
If you see things like God does or can accept His ways and rule, you see Him as good. If you see reality through another lens, you'll see him as bad, partly bad, mostly good, partly good, etc, just the same as I see you and you see me. God is not a robot, a computer program, some "perfect symmetry". He's a being with a personality, who makes choices, and much like a man sees his wife and she sees him (assuming the relationship is solid), the husband and wife don't have to see eye to eye 100% or even 100% agree with one another, but they still unite, act as one, and take each other's back.
Thank you for your thoughts and taking the time to post them up as I said I'm allowing for arguments sake that god does in fact exist; what I'm arguing is the nature of this god as in what if gods nature is indeed evil ?
Here is the case made out for the evil god hypothesis by Proffessor Stephen Law , it's very short and too the point .....
Why does it matter to an atheist, who doesn't believe? So what? You're an atheist. All this is meaningless stuff you're talking about. You shouldn't be even discussing it. Live your life like an atheist, and walk like it. Don't have anything to do with this so called "nonsense"
If We allow there is a god my claim is that this god is an evil god ; here is the challlenge laid out in full to Christians by Professor Stephen Law ........
The evil god hypothesis
Suppose that there is indeed a single omnipotent and omniscient deity. Only this being is not omnibenevolent but omnimalevolent. His cruelty is beyond our comprehension. His malice knows no bounds. Who believes in a God like that? Almost no one, of course. But why not?
After all, notice that many of the most popular arguments for the existence of God provide no clue as to his moral character. Teleological or design arguments, for example, typically conclude only that there is some intelligence behind the universe. Such arguments, as they stand, supply no more support for a good God than they do an evil god. The same is true of many cosmological arguments (arguments for a first cause or prime mover, etc. based on the thought that the universe requires some cause or explanation).
So why not believe in an evil God? There is an obvious argument against evil God, of course: the evidential problem of good:
If gratuitous good exist, evil god does not exist.
Gratuitous good exists.
Therefore, evil god does not exist.
Yes, the universe contains much evil. But it also contains a great deal of good. Arguably far too much good to allow anyone reasonably to believe this world is the creation of such a powerful and malevolent being. Why all the love, laughter, ice-cream, and rainbows? Why does an evil God allow us to see beauty, allow us to help each and reduce suffering, give us children to love who love us unconditionally in return? Perhaps an evil god will allow some goods as the price paid for greater evils, but surely at least some of the goods we observe are gratuitous in the sense that there's no evil-god-justifying reason for them. Surely, if the world were the creation of an evil god, it would like much more like a vast torture chamber.
Notice the evidential argument from good mirrors the evidential argument from evil. In each case, we note that the world just doesn't look as we should expect if there really was such an omnipotent deity responsible for it.
Here is a very short and amusing video laying out the claim in full
Dermot is one of the most judgmental hateful anti Christian bigots on this site.
He lives and breathes to spew his judgment against God (who he claims does not exist).
I ask you, if you did not believe in sasquatch, would you litterally spend your life attacking and judging those who did belive in it? No, you would laugh at it and ignore it because it would not be worth your time to constantly dwell on it.
That kind of tells you that these bigots do believe in God, and hate him for whatever dsyfunctonal past they may have had from false Christians who scarred them so deeply.
This guy is clinically insecure when it comes to God, He was probably abused as a child to create such bigoted hatred.
I want you to notice one thing in common with all these anti Christian bigots. THEY MOST ALWAYS USE OLD TESTAMENT JEWISH LAW, to attack CHRISTIANS!
You hardly ever see them using New Testament Christians verses to push their lies and distortions of what Christians stands for.
They will always take verses out of context to try and paint God as being a supporter of killing innocent people. The verses they use are most times speaking to times of war and killing even the offspring of evil tirbes, etc.
If you read the entire chapter and Bible, you will be able to discern the truth, but these bigots want to condition you to believe their lies because of their dsyfunctional hate for God.
The fact that most of these bigots never say word one against Islam, where terrorists are actually killing innocent women and children today, says it all.
Christianity must be the one true faith to be the only religion so attacked by bigots.
Just one example of taking verses out of context....
If you read one sentence from a letter written by a man, where he said to kill everyone in the house next door incuding the women and children, you would believe him to be an evil person.
But if you read the entire chapter, whereby the neighbors, including the women and children, had raped and murdered his wife, had stabbed one child to death, and who had killed his other children with bombs, you would then grasp the context of that man's statement.
Bigots will make sure you only read the verses that paint the God (they say they don't believe in) as being evil.
It's quite rich to hear the supporters of even No Restrition abortions of truly innocent viable babies, even special needs babies, etc., judging God for killing tribes of warlike terrorists, as we are dong in war today.
You see, he is pro choice and has no problem with killing unborn babies FOR ANY REASON! But if God said to do it in times of war, all of a sudden he will judge God for it no matter the reasons.
The hypocrisy is mind blowing when dealing with dsyfunctional people on the Left.
If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to hear these bigots judge people who believe in Sasquatch. This is because Sasquatch is not real, and it does not shine a light on their own personal irresponsible behaviors. This is the root of their hate. TOTAL INSECURITIES!
Now you will see Dermot write another novel, with the same cherry picked verses, pushing his hatred for a God he says does not exist. This is where I ignore the rantings. I've seen them a thousand times over and over again.
I hope you spend a long time writing them.
He lives and breathes to spew his judgment against God (who he claims does not exist).
If he claims he doesn't exist then how can he be trying to judge him? My guess is that he's judging you and not God.
I ask you, if you did not believe in sasquatch, would you litterally spend your life attacking and judging those who did belive in it?
Some obvious differences here.
1) Sasquatch believers don't start major wars to force their beliefs onto others. If they did I would be the first to speak out against them.
2) Sasquatch believers don't take literally a book which demands they kill everyone they can't convert.
3) Sasquatch believers don't pass damaging beliefs onto small children.
You say ......Now you will see Dermot write another novel, ......
That's after you write a ........novel 😂😂😂
You agree with abortion when god is doing it , also you agree special needs babies are not fit for the site of your god as your god states in the bible ......Here you are agreeing " evil " babies deserve to be aborted .
On a side note I'm delighted you're so terribly upset I hope your insanity doesn't ....... worsen 👋👋👋👋👋👋
You stated last week that god in the bible only sanctioned abortion because the unborn babies were " evil " proving as I keep telling you that you totally approve of unrestricted abortion if god is doing it ; you then pathetically back -tracked and wailed " you're taking the bible out of context " to which I reasonably asked " what is the right context for god commanding and sanctioning abortion "
The resulting silence has been deafening and as usual you resort to your childish ....IGNORE
You make an exceptionally poor role model for Christianity . You are mentally unbalanced and seething with spite and rage
But LoveU in my view those who say god is moral are a rebel of god that rebel who god is .He is the judge and he commands how to be immoral . He is the basis of our immorrality , even a Christian can see what see for they are stil, created by the image of god .
Just as you claim your god is moral I can just as equally state the complete and utter opposite and my position equally valid