a moral arguement against theism

[Jenyar]

There is tolerance of things God is clearly opposed to, and you don't like it. Then there is ultimately intolerance (judgment) of these things, and you don't like that either. That's why I ask: what would you prefer?

 

[Chazman]

It is absurd, because "god" is clearly opposed to these things.
And that is the moral argument against theism.
God IS to blame for people thinking they need an excuse to fight over territory. God IS to blame for suppressing and altering the natural behaviour of man. And thus automatically god IS to blame for everything thats wrong with the world. That seems pretty immoral to me, tricking a simple shortsighted species into raping and destroying their home planet. Tricking rosa magika into believing human behaviour is "atrocious".
The guy's one sick fuck. Worst of all his secret weapon was suggesting "niceness", it's just so god damn sinister.
Theism is immoral because it's the act of worshipping this lunatic.
Those you disparrage, those who use god as an excuse to act like human beings, are obviously too pure in their hearts to be overpowered by his evil influence.

well we see you have a wonderfull veiw of GOD, and you seem to know
him so well in your own opinion.
I think anyone with a little common sense knows that all these acts in
Gods name knows this is not true... seems to me that if someone says
there doing something in Gods name , or for the sake of God .
you just simply believe them. HUmmm seems to fit just fine with your veiw of God . doesn't realy mean anything, other than you are extremly gullible.

 

[Chazman]

a moral arguement against theism

Examples of objective moral truths.

Here, now, are a few examples of moral principles that I take to be paradigms of objective moral truths:

P1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

A particularly gross violation of this principle is to be found in the genocidal policies of the Nazi SS who, following the orders of Hitler, slaughtered 6 million Jews, together with countless Gypsies, homosexuals, and other so-called "undesirables." It is no excuse, as I see it, that they believed themselves to be cutting out a cancer from society, or that they were, as Hitler explained in 1933, merely doing to the Jews what Christians had been preaching for 2000 years.[6] Another, more recent, violation of this principle is to be found in the genocidal practices of Milosevic and his henchman for whom it is no excuse to say that they are merely redressing past injustices or, by ethnic cleansing, laying the foundations for a more stable society.

P2. It is morally wrong to provide one's troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.

This principle, or something like it, lies behind our moral revulsion at the policies of the German and Japanese High Commands who selected sexually attractive young women, especially virgins, to give so-called "comfort" to their soldiers. It is irrelevant, I want to say, that most societies, historically, have regarded such comforts as among the accepted spoils of war.

P3. It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.

Perhaps we can imagine situations--such as the plane crash in the Andes--in which cannibalistic acts might be exonerated. But making people eat their own family members--as many Polynesian tribes are reputed to have done--in order to punish them, or to horrify and strike fear into the hearts of their enemies, is unconscionable.

P4. It is morally wrong to practise human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise.

To be sure, human sacrifice was widely accepted by the tribes against whom the children of Israel fought, and--on the other side of the Atlantic--by the Aztecs and Incas. But this--I hope you'll agree--doesn't make the practice acceptable, even if it was done to appease the gods in whom they believed.

P5. It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

Perhaps we can think of situations in which it would be permissible to torture someone who is himself a torturer so as to obtain information as to the whereabouts of prisoners who will otherwise die from the injuries he has inflicted on them. But cases like that of Pope Pius V who watched the Roman Inquisition burn a nonconforming religious scholar in about 1570, fall beyond the moral pale; he can't be exonerated on the grounds that he thought he was thereby saving the dissident's soul from the eternal fires of Hell.

On all of these examples, I would like to think, theists and other morally enlightened persons will agree with me. And I would like to think, further, that theists would agree with me in holding that anyone who committed, caused, commanded, or condoned, acts in violation of any of these principles--the five that I will refer to hereafter as "our" principles--is not only evil but should be regarded with abhorrence.

God's violations of our moral principles.
But now comes the linch-pin of my moral argument against theism. For, as I shall now show, the theist God--as he supposedly reveals himself in the Jewish and Christian Bibles--either himself commits, commands others to commit, or condones, acts which violate every one of our five principles.

In violation of P1, for instance, God himself drowned the whole human race except Noah and his family [Gen. 7:23]; he punished King David for carrying out a census that he himself had ordered and then complied with David's request that others be punished instead of him by sending a plague to kill 70,000 people [II Sam. 24:1-15]; and he commanded Joshua to kill old and young, little children, maidens, and women (the inhabitants of some 31 kingdoms) while pursuing his genocidal practices of ethnic cleansing in the lands that orthodox Jews still regard as part of Greater Israel [see Josh., chapter 10 in particular]. These are just three out of hundreds of examples of God's violations of P1.

In violation of P2, after commanding soldiers to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and young boys without mercy, God permitted the soldiers to use the 32,000 surviving virgins for themselves. [Num. 31:17-18].

In violation of P3, God repeatedly says he has made, or will make, people cannibalize their own children, husbands, wives, parents, and friends because they haven't obeyed him. [Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-58, Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10]

In violation of P4, God condoned Jephthah's act in sacrificing his only child as a burnt offering to God [Judg. 11:30-39].

Finally, in violation of P5, God's own sacrificial "Lamb," Jesus, will watch as he tortures most members of the human race for ever and ever, mainly because they haven't believed in him. The book of Revelation tells us that "everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain" [Rev. 13:8] will go to Hell where they "will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night" [Rev. 14:10-11].


extracts from A Moral Argument for Atheism.
Raymond D. Bradley

Please , Let me just share what another wrote....

Yesterday 03:11 AM
Xev Zzzzz - snooore - gee, another thread suggesting that Christianity is morally bankrupt. That's suprising!

I sometimes question the motives of athiests who find this sort of thing to be amusing. If you do not accept the idea of a supreme being, why is the idea of an immoral supreme being so upsetting? or for that matter one with moral principles that you take to be paradigms of objective moral truths.


What is the satisfaction in endlessly repeating how morally different the Bible is from our standard morality? If you don't believe in a supreme being, you accept that it is human nature and you get over it. Let the dead horse be dead in peace.

 

[water]

Lou,


What is your definition of "God"?

 

[the preacher]

What is the satisfaction in endlessly repeating how morally different the Bible is from our standard morality?

there's no satisfaction, we are just dumfounded, by the fact you could worship, something so inherently evil.

If you don't believe in a supreme being, you accept that it is human nature and you get over it. Let the dead horse be dead in peace.

but it 's not human nature, these people who followed their god for fear of it's wrath, did things no normal human, would want to.
all because, they believed it was gods will.
it's certainly not human nature, it's blind faith ,mass hypnosis, mass hysteria, indoctrination, brainwashing.
all these things make people do, things they would not normally do.

 

[Tiassa]

(My other eye! What did you do to my other eye?)

Examples of objective moral truths.

Objective, my eye:

P1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

Why?

P2. It is morally wrong to provide one's troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.

Why?

P3. It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.

Why?

P4. It is morally wrong to practise human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise

Why?

P5. It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

Why?

• • • •​

The underlying question pertains to the assertion that there is no known bright center of the moral Universe, no objective "moral anchor".

While I don't have any notable problems to pick with the moral assertions themselves, they are not objective.

What is Mr. Bradley's objective basis of morality?

 

[Chazman]

there's no satisfaction, we are just dumfounded, by the fact you could worship, something so inherently evil.

but it 's not human nature, these people who followed their god for fear of it's wrath, did things no normal human, would want to.
all because, they believed it was gods will.
it's certainly not human nature, it's blind faith ,mass hypnosis, mass hysteria, indoctrination, brainwashing.
all these things make people do, things they would not normally do.

UHHH !!! finaly someone that knows it all ,,
and wiser than us all.. and brainwashing has no effects hummm!!!!
what a tuff one you are ...
hummm... lets see with your same reasoning --->>
there's a few bad car accidents from drunk drivers ,, so this must mean
ALL people who drive cars are drunk drivers, and doomed to get into an accident ..
YEP!! I can see your point now! sign me up for one month
unbrainwashing from the preacher class 101 .. room "doomed for hell".

 

[mustafhakofi]

blimy chazman: step down from your high horse, was there something in, the preachers post, you did'nt like. oh I see you thought he was talking about drunk drivers.
and yes your right everyone, who drinks and gets drunk, and then drives is a drunk driver.
and a large % will get into an accident.
and yes you are right again, he did mis-out from his list drink and drugs, which also make's people do some strange things.

 

[Tiassa]

If you do not accept the idea of a supreme being, why is the idea of an immoral supreme being so upsetting?

Because they must live among their neighbors who hold aloft an immoral model for moral conduct. When so many of your neighbors are immoral, it creates functional problems in the world, and any thing entitled to self-determination has the right to defend against such creeping hatred just as it also has the right to abdicate responsibility for their moral conduct to an immoral model.

What one believes is their own business. What that belief demands of others, well, that's other folks' business, too.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

What is your definition of "God"?

Yes, maybe this will clear up some of these wierd sentences people are aiming towards me.
God is a concept. I don't believe in god. My point was the concept is immoral, because it tells us we are bad animals and makes us try to act against our nature and believe our nature is "wrong". In my view that's about as "wrong" as you can get.
Try reading my post again with that in mind.
I'm saying the fact that "god" is opposed to the things you mention means "god" is wrong, not those things, not the people doing them. Those things can not be wrong. This strange thing we thought up to make us feel guilty about the animal we are is very very wrong and has negative effects on the whole planet. We are the way we are for a reason and it is our natural behaviour that neatly slots into the balance of planet earth, our altered god-fearing behaviour does not mesh with planet earth.
And the evidence is all around you.

Actually, even if god is real it doesn't change a damn thing.
The only difference is I actually have someone to be pissed off at.

 

[Chazman]

Yes, maybe this will clear up some of these wierd sentences people are aiming towards me.
God is a concept. I don't believe in god. My point was the concept is immoral, because it tells us we are bad animals and makes us try to act against our nature and believe our nature is "wrong". In my view that's about as "wrong" as you can get.
Try reading my post again with that in mind.
I'm saying the fact that "god" is opposed to the things you mention means "god" is wrong, not those things, not the people doing them. Those things can not be wrong. This strange thing we thought up to make us feel guilty about the animal we are is very very wrong and has negative effects on the whole planet. We are the way we are for a reason and it is our natural behaviour that neatly slots into the balance of planet earth, our altered god-fearing behaviour does not mesh with planet earth.
And the evidence is all around you.

Actually, even if god is real it doesn't change a damn thing.
The only difference is I actually have someone to be pissed off at.

I find it interesting. a few things you wrote here :::

QUOTE=Dr Lou Natic
I'm saying the fact that "god" is opposed to the things you mention means "god" is wrong, not those things, not the people doing them. Those things can not be wrong.
???? so people aren't wrong ??? not even sometimes .....??
I bet you might change your thoughts on this,,, IF they said they did
it in Gods name...

QUOTE=Dr Lou Natic
This strange thing we thought up to make us feel guilty about the animal we are is very very wrong and has negative effects on the whole planet.
??? strange thing we thought up??? so much for proof anD evidence..
why would " WE " make up such a thing to feel guily about ?? just to have negative effects on the plant, and just what are those negative effects????
only ones I know of are : murder , rape , cheating , lieing, stealing, etc....
and these things just so happen to be the things God Hates, and TRIES through his word to teach us to not do for our OWN GOOD..... DUHHhh.

QUOTE=Dr Lou Natic
We are the way we are for a reason and it is our natural behaviour that neatly slots into the balance of planet earth.
so what is the reason why we are the way we are ???
what is our natural behaviour ????
what is the balance of the earth AND were did that come from ????
this is the "evidence is all around you"..

 

[water]

Yes, maybe this will clear up some of these wierd sentences people are aiming towards me.
God is a concept. I don't believe in god. My point was the concept is immoral, because it tells us we are bad animals and makes us try to act against our nature and believe our nature is "wrong". In my view that's about as "wrong" as you can get.
Try reading my post again with that in mind.
I'm saying the fact that "god" is opposed to the things you mention means "god" is wrong, not those things, not the people doing them. Those things can not be wrong. This strange thing we thought up to make us feel guilty about the animal we are is very very wrong and has negative effects on the whole planet. We are the way we are for a reason and it is our natural behaviour that neatly slots into the balance of planet earth, our altered god-fearing behaviour does not mesh with planet earth.
And the evidence is all around you.

Actually, even if god is real it doesn't change a damn thing.

The only difference is I actually have someone to be pissed off at.

Exactly, Lou. This is why you are in the religion forum, and this is why you bring God (in whichever way you wish to understand him) into your arguments.

You need someone to be pissed off at.


If there were no God, whom or what would you be pissed off at then?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Poor effort rosa. My point wasn't that I need to be pissed off at someone. Its just that if god does exist there is something to focuss that frustration on. As it stands in reality, its just an unfortunate turn of events.

The effect "god" has had on humanity has been, well, evil. Thats what I'm saying, and thats a moral argument against theism.
I'm talking biblical god, the god that interupted man and said "stop being men". That was a disaster. It doesn't take a genius to see that now.

Sorry chazman, you (emphatically)failed to earn a reply. Better luck next year when you maybe get an interpreter or transform into a different, smarter, human being.

 

[Jenyar]

The effect "god" has had on humanity has been, well, evil.

Please qualify. The effect of "god" as opposed to the effect of what else? Who delivers the "effects" of anything, and in what spirit? What spirit do you support; in what way should things be done?

I'm talking biblical god, the god that interupted man and said "stop being men". That was a disaster. It doesn't take a genius to see that now.

Correction. He said start being men. Stop being immoral, depraved, selfish, egotistic sinners. He said "choose life". Really, I agree with Rosa. Who are you pissed off at? What did God do to you that's so explicit that sin can be discounted? If people actually acted against their nature, would you still have had a reason to be pissed off?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

The effect of "god" as opposed to the effect of what else?

Godlessness.

Who delivers the "effects" of anything, and in what spirit?

What? I don't know what your're saying but the effects of god has been homo-sapiens not behaving as they naturally instinctually would be behaving if the god concept never popped up. It effected human culture, now certain behaviours are considered "wrong", when in reality they are essential to the health of the species and planet. Fighting over territory being an excellent example.

Correction. He said start being men. Stop being immoral, depraved, selfish, egotistic sinners.

There you go, you're a perfect example of a ruined human.

What did God do to you that's so explicit that sin can be discounted?

Trick people like you into believing in "sin".

If people actually acted against their nature, would you still have had a reason to be pissed off?

Are you paying attention? Thats exactly what I'm pissed off at.
Every animal behaves the way it does for a reason, that behaviour pattern is what its environment is used to. If the behaviour is altered the environment suffers.
If we put electrodes on all the 'bananas' in a forest inhabited by chimps we'd gradually see an environmental problem emerge. Human society was loaded with invisible electrodes due to god's threats.
Now the whole world is experiencing the hugest environmental disaster in history. And its all because of the behaviour of human beings being altered by "god".
All these "sins" are in your head, planted there with lies based on garbage. They aren't real. There is nothing inherently wrong with the homo-sapien, it didn't need to be told how to act and how not to act. It was tricked into believing its natural behaviours and urges were "wrong". And you are one of the tricked, so talking to you is kind of pointless. Like trying to explain a video game to a video game.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"I guess the bottom line, if you want to take the argument seriously, is: do you belong to Israel or to Pharoah? Do you have reason to point a finger at God?"

S - I belong to the human race. If just ONE human being regardless of race or creed suffers an untimely death or injustice, I feel a huge amount of pain. What religion creates, is an unnatural division of mankind which leads to the attrocities we see around us today, and to the perversion of acceptable morals throughout history.

Allcare.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

If just ONE human being regardless of race or creed suffers an untimely death or injustice, I feel a huge amount of pain.

Religion is responsible for you being brainwashed in that way.
And it's wrong.

What religion creates, is an unnatural division of mankind which leads to the attrocities we see around us today, and to the perversion of acceptable morals throughout history.

No, thats human nature. I actually agree with the theists in this thread that religion can't be blamed for those things. As no religion promotes hostility, thats the homo-sapien shining through against all odds. They try to warp religion to justify their actions, they shouldn't need to. And religion is in the wrong for making them feel like they need to.

 

[Chazman]

Poor effort rosa. My point wasn't that I need to be pissed off at someone. Its just that if god does exist there is something to focuss that frustration on. As it stands in reality, its just an unfortunate turn of events.

The effect "god" has had on humanity has been, well, evil. Thats what I'm saying, and thats a moral argument against theism.
I'm talking biblical god, the god that interupted man and said "stop being men". That was a disaster. It doesn't take a genius to see that now.

Sorry chazman, you (emphatically)failed to earn a reply. Better luck next year when you maybe get an interpreter or transform into a different, smarter, human being.

Well,,,,, I see. you had a brain overload, with no answers.
If I were you . I would have avoided repling as well. maybe we can wait till
you get some answers from some else.

 

[Chazman]

Oh,,, and also -->Dr Lou Natic

sorry you are so depressed, unhappy, hatefull, and very angry at someone you
don't even believe in. this must be realy hard on you ..

 

[stretched]

Yo Lou,

Quote Lou,
"Religion is responsible for you being brainwashed in that way.
And it's wrong."

S - Nah brother, I have never followed a religion, but I know myself. The pain I feel is empathy. Very simple.

Quote Lou,
"No, thats human nature. I actually agree with the theists in this thread that religion can't be blamed for those things. As no religion promotes hostility, thats the homo-sapien shining through against all odds. They try to warp religion to justify their actions, they shouldn't need to. And religion is in the wrong for making them feel like they need to."

As much as I agree that in essence basic human nature is at play here, religion has played a pivotal role in gore, since mankind first worshipped a god. Mankind has never attempted existance without some kind of religion as is very clear even in the enlightened year 2004, in the pro Christian stance put forward by President Bush.

Allcare.