Hell is nowhere...
The immorality of the Christian God
- Thread starter Übergänger
- Start date
Alpha -
I'm sorry, I should make my self more clear. God (the Father) exists in Heaven. God (the Spirit) exists everywhere - I suppose you could call it life or something.
I'm sorry, I should make my self more clear. God (the Father) exists in Heaven. God (the Spirit) exists everywhere - I suppose you could call it life or something.
That's not sensible. Just because their beliefs are flawed doesn't mean they can't act in a moral manner. Your beliefs are flawed too, does that mean you can't act in a moral manner? The only way it would be impossible for an atheist to be good is if it required one's beleifs to be true, and to always act on those beliefs. Not only are believers' beliefs not all true, but they also don't always act on them as well.
Man's definition of justice is obviously in conflict with the bible's claim (of God's claim) of justice. One may argue that if we don't see it as justice, then it's not justice.
The justification is that the bible (indeed all religion) induces atrocities to be commited. That makes it evil. If you think such things are OK because you think God told you, then you are a danger to society, and I think that any religion that condones such acts (especially when based in ignorance) is inherently evil. Religion has done far more harm than good, and I think it should be abolished. I find it sad that some people can't deal with certain things without it.
My flaws are forgiven and then forgoten, the atheists are not.In God's eyes, one sin, whether it be lying, stealing, whatever, means you've crossed a line that you can't "uncross". You have broken the inkwell and now your white shirt is stained black, and you cannot remove it on your own.
No one is perfect, everyone will commit immoral acts in their life. You claim atheists are not, while believers are, but what gives them preference? Why would God forgive a dumb believer who never questioned his religion or beliefs and simply accepted what people tell him at face value who commits many immoral acts, never trying to make full use of his potential intelligence... over an atheist who questions and strives to arrive at the truth and does whatever he can to benefit society the most?
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Alpha said:
Essentially you are saying "Why would God prefer a Good Man who has gone rotten to a Rotten Man who inexplicably does good?" It's a question that you create in such a way that it does not make sense any longer.
Religions are Engines for Moral Instruction. People do things to benefit Society BECAUSE they are Religious. Now, people who reject a Moral Center of the Universe -- Atheists -- for the most part fall into a selfish Hedonism. For all their talk of altruism, we rarely see any such philanthropy in action. Most the time we just get alot of selfishness and screwing around from Atheists.
Just ask yourself, if you were to fall into a surging flood, who you would rather have on the bank watching you froth by... a Seminary Student or some pimple faced snot nosed angry at the Universe Atheist?
To add on those guys.... why would an intellectual that have all the opportunities should be more important then a dumb person that has no education and never had opportunities? Doesn´t God help those that are weak? You bet He does....Alpha said:
Not really, I would not call an atheist a "rotten man", and certainly not say his moral actions are inexplicable. Hell, I'd rather say a believers moral actions are inexplicable.
Religions are social constructs designed for controlling people. It teaches a corrupt sense of ethics, and one should learn morals from experience (and their parents).
Now that's a steaming pile of BS. People commit immoral acts because they are religious. Most Christians seem to think they can sin all they want and get forgivness.
Yet another pile of steaming BS. I am an atheist, and I am not selfish, nor hedonistic. All you have is my word that I'm not hedonistic, but you can ask Asguard how selfish I am.
Jeebus man, religion has done more harm than good. I bet atheists have done more good than harm. Atheism is better concerning morality because they don't have a false moral center (which happens to be centered around the selfishness of getting into heaven and doing whatever they think God wants to get it). Some atheists are selfish, but I think more Christians are. Some atheists are immoral, but so are Christians.
What the fuck? What makes you think atheists (no capitol) are angry at the universe? And the "pimple faced snot nosed" is offensive.
I wouldn't care whether or not they're religious as long as they're gonna help. At least an atheist is more likely to do something useful than pray to God or some other useless shit.
And hey, I'd rather have an atheist who realizes the importance of this life, than a theist who thinks this life isn't as important because all that matters is the afterlife.
By your wording you express views that there are such Christians.
from what I hear, you are trying to say that atheists belong in heaven, but Christians don't because atheists use their brain more. In order for this to be true, I assume that you are saying all Christians are dumd because they don't think on their own, and thus they don't deseve heaven.
That's right. I've met some of them.
Well, that would seem to be an implication, but it was simply a question: Why would God favor faith and ignorance over intelligence and rationality? Regardless of their moral virtues.
No, just saying that some are less intelligent and less moral than some atheists, yet you imply God would favor the believers.
Übergänger
Registered Member
Why indeed? God should be an incredibly, hell, infinitely intelligent guy, and if man is created in God's image, why in the world would He have you doing less thinking and analyzing in favor of unquestioning belief?
Surely God himself would not approve of the inconsistency, absurdity and hilariousness that the Bible conveys in keen men? specially when many parts of that book end up depicting him as some kind of sadistic clown?
Why? I can't answer that fully, though I can give you some hints.Übergänger said:
There are a good intelligence and a evil intelligence. The difference isn't in intelligence itself but how you use it.
You should understand that faith is good for the soul, if you use intelligence to destroy your faith, then that is evil. You should rather use intelligence to improve your faith.
So how can we do that? Well, if you believe that there is a God. Then you could use intelligence to find ways to do His will. But I personally think that being spontanious is better than to carefully plan a good deed. But as long as you do good deeds it's fine either way.
What it all comes down to is what really MATTERS!
Does it really matter if the earth is round or flat?
Does it really matter if electrons swirl around the nucleus of a atom?
What matters is love, understanding, faith, hope, happiness, mercy, forgivness and so on, cause all these exists not only by itself, but is a result of a higher order. Mercy does not require innocence. The man given mercy is often VERY guilty, though he was given mercy because...? Why? Maybe because of love, understanding, faith, hope and forgiveness? It isn't seldom the man given mercy goes on to live a righteous life. Cause he has seen what is good.
We must protect these things, cause logic cannot make them, there is no logic that can 'make' hope. It's a gift from God. We must treat it like a treasure, cause that is what it is. We don't deserve anything, we were given mercy to start with.
There will allways be pieces missing in our attempt to intelligently reconstruct the world. Faith see the lines between the points. Even though the "image" isn't fully available to us, we can still suspect what is portraited. Cause deep inside we know, the image isn't just random dots. Something is behind all of this.
The second sentence was sensible, but the first contradicts it. Intelligence is not inherently good or evil, it's a tool, and it depends how it's used.
Assuming there's such thing as a soul, there's no reason or evidence why faith would be good for it. Using intelligence to destroy faith is a good thing. Ignorance is not a good thing, and faith shows not only a lack of intelligence, but a sheep mentality, and a potential for insanity.
One should first determine whether you believe in God, and you should do it using your brain, not by accepting the first thing that comes along. They tell me the bible has the answers, and it says this, that, and the other thing, so I'll believe it.
Once you have determined whether or not you believe in God, you progress from there. Next question I would think should be "What do we know or can we know about God?" Finding ways to do his will presumes you can know his will, which is BS.
Quite. We wouldn't have satellites and cell phones and spaceships, and an international space station, etc., etc., if we still thought the earth was flat.
We wouldn't be on the internet discussing this if it didn't.
What matters is what benefits yourself and society, and is a result of things that have nothing to do with a higher being.
More BS. Sorry, but you're just spewing what you've read from religious texts without regard to truth and reality. Educate yourself.
Faith draws lines at random between arbitrary points. Intelligence determines which ones aren't arbitrary.
"Deep inside" you know. That is an appeal to emotion. It's effective because it appeals to emotions first, and studies have shown we tend to make emotional decisions first, then use reason to back it up. You don't know anything "deep inside" if you can't justify it rationally or empirically. There's nothing to suggest anything is "behind all this".
The real issue in reason/intellegence vs. faith is one of morals, or more spasifically how one comes to their moral justifications. The two sets of justifications which are athoritarian (faith), and evidential (rational).
Evidential ethics has a serious advantage in that if it makes a mistake due to insufficient information, it can be rectified. We have seen this many times Slavery, poor treatment of women, ect. Once the flew in reason is identified it is corrected and can no longer be used as a moral justification.
Athoritative ethics (at least those based on old sacred writtings) can not fix themselves upon examination of evidence. The bible still condones slavery, the koran still marginalizes women. Religious ethics simply fail.
Whats more, even in the cases where faith based ethics comes to the correct answer (it is wrong to murder) this is no assurance that it will come to the correct ethical answer to future questions, because sacred writtings stopped gaining in ethical knowlegde when they were written.
For this reason alone it is imperative that people stop following biblical ethical tradition. We are our only chance to make the world a better place.
Evidential ethics has a serious advantage in that if it makes a mistake due to insufficient information, it can be rectified. We have seen this many times Slavery, poor treatment of women, ect. Once the flew in reason is identified it is corrected and can no longer be used as a moral justification.
Athoritative ethics (at least those based on old sacred writtings) can not fix themselves upon examination of evidence. The bible still condones slavery, the koran still marginalizes women. Religious ethics simply fail.
Whats more, even in the cases where faith based ethics comes to the correct answer (it is wrong to murder) this is no assurance that it will come to the correct ethical answer to future questions, because sacred writtings stopped gaining in ethical knowlegde when they were written.
For this reason alone it is imperative that people stop following biblical ethical tradition. We are our only chance to make the world a better place.