Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?

[GreatestIam]

Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

God’s law, should he/she/it ever show up, --- is supposed to become earth’s law, imposed by force, --- as need be, --- and the religious way, --- instead of sound moral arguments.

God is demonstrably not moral.

One of the more important commandments to us is that of not killing humans. God kills humans.

I assume that that law would be high on our commandment list; commands to a slave from a master. Yet God exempts himself from that good law and does this evil will and kills humans.

That commandment is a subjective position and as I can think of a few instances where killing a human would be the moral thing to do. That commandment is thus immoral.

I do not think it’s a good idea to give an obviously and demonstrably immoral Gods respect but many theists do.

The power to make human laws should never be given to our immoral gods. Especially Yahweh and Allah, who I think are the bottom of the barrel on morals.

Human law seeks to be moral and humane and should never be putrefied by the immoral Gods that mankind has create in our image.

To do so would be insane.

So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers, --- something I do not understand.

Why you and I call our gods, “God”, --- when he is such an immoral character, --- fictional or not?

Are we such immoral entities ourselves? I am immoral. Are you?

Regards
DL


P.S. When you reply, I might have to do this to those who will not answer from the heart and try to use their holy book of myths and turn to preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8

Remember also my fellow religionists and believers, all clergy of all faiths are liars. God himself told me this when he told me to think more demographically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

 

[SavannahMann]

Is the Farmer immoral who slaughters a chicken for dinner? For we mere mortals are essentially the same. The farmer cares for the livestock. But when it is time, the farmer also sees the livestock killed, or sold to be killed. Many Vegans would argue that this is immoral, but isn’t it equally questionable to consume living matter to live? If it is Lettuce, or porridge, we eat things that were alive, and we must to survive.

Saying that we are cruel to the Shrimp that is hauled from the sea. Now, we are talking about a Deity. A creature or being that is impossibly powerful. With the snap of a finger, this Being could wipe us all from existence. Even if we are little more than pets to this Being does it make the being immoral? Is it because the Being does not give us all riches and wonders to our hearts content?

Let’s say you have a dozen dogs, and you care for them, and take them to the Vet for their shots and check ups. One develops Cancer. Are you immoral because you don’t cure the cancer? Are you cruel because you put the dog to sleep? Should you be judged by the law of the dog pack because they say so? If they turned on you, and attacked you, would you be immoral for beating or even killing the dogs?

Your entire premise is flawed. You consider yourself equal to a God you don’t believe in. You have decided they are immoral by your standards, and would instantly object if the dog bit you as the animal is not worthy to sink its teeth into your flesh. You would rage when the cat slashed you with its claws. You consider yourself a caring pet owner. But what right do you have to own a pet? Well, this man’s law you say is superior, considers you the owner and holds you responsible if the pet does not get the required vaccinations. If the pet attacks another, you are liable by law. Does this mean you are a failed God, worthy of death because you let a lesser being attack an equal, or because you lorded your superiority over the lesser being?

Either you believe in God, and accept that there is wisdom you can not really understand, or you don’t, and attack those who do believe for whatever reasons you can imagine. Wisdom we can’t understand is important to get. A century ago, the idea of Black Holes was laughed at. A century ago, the idea of many Galaxies was insane. A mere hundred years ago, cancer was an automatic death sentence. Today, you have a chance. Is God cruel because He does not cure cancer? Or is God like a stern parent, insisting that the Child figure out the math problem on their own, to learn the lessons they’ll need in the future. Was God cruel because he did not show the Pope evidence of the rightness of Galileo? Or was God wise because he let mankind make their mistakes, and learn from them?

In the end, either you believe, or you do not. As for those who pervert the lessons handed down, how are they any different than the rest of us? Rewriting history to suit our ideals. Demanding that no one hear or think anything we disagree with. We do with our daily lives what you denounce in the faithful.

I didn’t bother watching your silly self serving videos. I can debate a straw man of my own making easily. I can play myself in Chess and win. This does not prove my brilliance. It only demonstrates my arrogance and ego. I feel sorry for you. Not because you believe or do not. But because you are arrogant enough to believe human morals are the superior force in the world, and in this you are exactly like the villains in history. They believed their ideals and beliefs were superior. They did some good, and some bad. What good do you do?

 

[night_son]

Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

God’s law, should he/she/it ever show up, --- is supposed to become earth’s law, imposed by force, --- as need be, --- and the religious way, --- instead of sound moral arguments.

God is demonstrably not moral.

One of the more important commandments to us is that of not killing humans. God kills humans.

I assume that that law would be high on our commandment list; commands to a slave from a master. Yet God exempts himself from that good law and does this evil will and kills humans.

That commandment is a subjective position and as I can think of a few instances where killing a human would be the moral thing to do. That commandment is thus immoral.

I do not think it’s a good idea to give an obviously and demonstrably immoral Gods respect but many theists do.

The power to make human laws should never be given to our immoral gods. Especially Yahweh and Allah, who I think are the bottom of the barrel on morals.

Human law seeks to be moral and humane and should never be putrefied by the immoral Gods that mankind has create in our image.

To do so would be insane.

So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers, --- something I do not understand.

Why you and I call our gods, “God”, --- when he is such an immoral character, --- fictional or not?

Are we such immoral entities ourselves? I am immoral. Are you?

Regards
DL


P.S. When you reply, I might have to do this to those who will not answer from the heart and try to use their holy book of myths and turn to preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8

Remember also my fellow religionists and believers, all clergy of all faiths are liars. God himself told me this when he told me to think more demographically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

The stereotypical serpent flits tongue not so forked as he had hoped.

I sympathize with your need for reassurance. That being said, in this issue of Pacifiers For Atheists an genuine attempt will be made to pick yours up off the floor for you and place it snuggly back on the high chair tray. Disclaimer: if you throw it back down there again, on the floor is where it shall remain, for your own good.

God is beyond morality and yet, God is morality embodied; an all encompassing "Over-Spirit". God is also a hierarchy of Spirit and Flesh and Matter. We mortal transients in this physical, living world were created in the physical and spiritual image of God as temporary living beings who first embodied a part of the living God ignorant of right and wrong; good and evil. That ignorance was shattered rather quickly not long after our creation. From that point forward to the present, we have existed generation after generation "in the know" so to speak, of the difference between primal/fundamental right and wrong; good and evil.

With the awareness of right and wrong came the indelible, inherent, indwelling spirit of free will. With the God given internal scales of free will we mortal humans can embody either good or evil through our choice of actions. However, there was and is a catch. Acting on our free will results in consequence for whatever behavior we choose. Action; reaction. Cause; effect. You could go out among your fellow mortal humans this moment, harm thousands of them and justify away the practice of your free will in this manner however you chose. But there would be consequences; you, as a mortal created living being would pay one hell of steep price.

Perhaps, so would your next several generations pay a price for your actions as well.

God is an "Un-Created" being--the first embodiment of actionable sentience. Like it or not (you can't do a damn thing about it either way), God is our first and ultimate Father and authority figure. What tendency is first among early childhood behaviors? Questioning our father's ability to do things he commands us not to do. But why can our fathers do things they tell us not to do? Because when we are young children our fathers have more wisdom and understanding about the workings of the physical world. God being the first, most authoritative Father imaginable knows better--has more wisdom of our world, the entire universe; of the physical and spiritual layers of both. His knowledge and wisdom is infinite; ours--even at the height of our nuclear/information Age, is pathetically finite. Perhaps if our race lives and experiences the physical and spiritual worlds for another few billion generations our collective species knowledge will equate to a drop or two in the oceans of God's wisdom.

So how, as children, do we often justify to ourselves and to others our bad behaviors? We justify lighting up that cigarette because dad smokes, right? We cross the street without looking both ways because that's how dad crosses it. But do we really know better than our fathers? What about biological or adoptive mortal father's who abuse us? I would argue that such pathetic excuses for earthly fathers still retain greater wisdom than ourselves--their children--as there is great wisdom in the genetic material handed down to us at conception. That wisdom includes a small part of the Logos present since our species creation, and it also includes tens of thousands of years of instinct. There's just no way any single individual one of us can "know better" than that primordial aspect of what is handed down to us from our biological fathers. You dig?

Much like our biological fathers "knowing better" than we do as children and adults, God, as ultimate father and authority figure, and in the context of our race as His children, cannot hope to ever know better or possess more wisdom. Not wanting to admit to or recognize the existence of an ultimate authority figure in our lives is understandable, and yet we do so every day as sons and daughters who obey and love our parents to some degree (honor they mother and father), and as law abiding citizens of our respective societies and communities.

True obedience to authority, however, originates within ourselves. Yes, we have free will and yes some societies allow us more personal freedom than others. However, without the foundation balance of personal responsibility (or self-editing our own behaviors), free will can only lead to consequences for bad actions which will eventually swallow our lives whole. At the very top of the hierarchy of personal responsibility is God. But there are many, many layers of it in between us here living on the terra firma of the mundane and the Father both within us and without of us and in all things around us.

Morality begins with us and ends with God.

And lastly: God, as the ultimate Father and authority figure stands outside out mortal philosophies or understanding of moral and amoral, right and wrong, good and evil acts, because His choices to do whatever act are for reasons we cannot comprehend but can certainly guess at as theologians have been doing for millennia. The acts of men cannot be blamed on God, only on the exercising of other men's free will for the benefit or harm of the rest of the world. God has given us free will. The consequences for how we use it are on us. However, as ultimate Father, can we not strive to understand how He would from time to time discipline us--His children--and intervene on our behalf, for own good whether we like it or not, understand his reasoning or not?

End of the day, accusations against God are like arrows flung into the abyssal darkness of the unfathomable. Trying to "hurt" God's feelings is akin to pummeling the ocean's surface with your fists. On the other hand, attempts to sever another person's faith from God are just as futile; once a man or woman has accepted God from without to that part of God inherent within, and has begun on the lifelong path to eternal salvation, whether or not he or she stops believing matters not. Leaving God then is forever a choice out of their hands; forever in the hands of the Eternal.

 

[BreezeWood]

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

but our mainstream ones are definitely that ...


describing them through text, those who write the books and the one's that adhere to their scriptural imperfections and there use against their fellow beings is the problem. the desert religions.

 

[GreatestIam]

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

but our mainstream ones are definitely that ...


describing them through text, those who write the books and the one's that adhere to their scriptural imperfections and there use against their fellow beings is the problem. the desert religions.

I call them the god religions as they are the idol worshipers.

I was not criticizing the text particularly, although I could, but was only commenting on whet the religions like Christianity and Islam have become I terms of homophobic and misogynous.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Is the Farmer immoral who slaughters a chicken for dinner? For we mere mortals are essentially the same. The farmer cares for the livestock. But when it is time, the farmer also sees the livestock killed, or sold to be killed. Many Vegans would argue that this is immoral, but isn’t it equally questionable to consume living matter to live? If it is Lettuce, or porridge, we eat things that were alive, and we must to survive.

Saying that we are cruel to the Shrimp that is hauled from the sea. Now, we are talking about a Deity. A creature or being that is impossibly powerful. With the snap of a finger, this Being could wipe us all from existence. Even if we are little more than pets to this Being does it make the being immoral? Is it because the Being does not give us all riches and wonders to our hearts content?

Let’s say you have a dozen dogs, and you care for them, and take them to the Vet for their shots and check ups. One develops Cancer. Are you immoral because you don’t cure the cancer? Are you cruel because you put the dog to sleep? Should you be judged by the law of the dog pack because they say so? If they turned on you, and attacked you, would you be immoral for beating or even killing the dogs?

Your entire premise is flawed. You consider yourself equal to a God you don’t believe in. You have decided they are immoral by your standards, and would instantly object if the dog bit you as the animal is not worthy to sink its teeth into your flesh. You would rage when the cat slashed you with its claws. You consider yourself a caring pet owner. But what right do you have to own a pet? Well, this man’s law you say is superior, considers you the owner and holds you responsible if the pet does not get the required vaccinations. If the pet attacks another, you are liable by law. Does this mean you are a failed God, worthy of death because you let a lesser being attack an equal, or because you lorded your superiority over the lesser being?

Either you believe in God, and accept that there is wisdom you can not really understand, or you don’t, and attack those who do believe for whatever reasons you can imagine. Wisdom we can’t understand is important to get. A century ago, the idea of Black Holes was laughed at. A century ago, the idea of many Galaxies was insane. A mere hundred years ago, cancer was an automatic death sentence. Today, you have a chance. Is God cruel because He does not cure cancer? Or is God like a stern parent, insisting that the Child figure out the math problem on their own, to learn the lessons they’ll need in the future. Was God cruel because he did not show the Pope evidence of the rightness of Galileo? Or was God wise because he let mankind make their mistakes, and learn from them?

In the end, either you believe, or you do not. As for those who pervert the lessons handed down, how are they any different than the rest of us? Rewriting history to suit our ideals. Demanding that no one hear or think anything we disagree with. We do with our daily lives what you denounce in the faithful.

I didn’t bother watching your silly self serving videos. I can debate a straw man of my own making easily. I can play myself in Chess and win. This does not prove my brilliance. It only demonstrates my arrogance and ego. I feel sorry for you. Not because you believe or do not. But because you are arrogant enough to believe human morals are the superior force in the world, and in this you are exactly like the villains in history. They believed their ideals and beliefs were superior. They did some good, and some bad. What good do you do?

TLDR.

 

[GreatestIam]

Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

God’s law, should he/she/it ever show up, --- is supposed to become earth’s law, imposed by force, --- as need be, --- and the religious way, --- instead of sound moral arguments.

God is demonstrably not moral.

One of the more important commandments to us is that of not killing humans. God kills humans.

I assume that that law would be high on our commandment list; commands to a slave from a master. Yet God exempts himself from that good law and does this evil will and kills humans.

That commandment is a subjective position and as I can think of a few instances where killing a human would be the moral thing to do. That commandment is thus immoral.

I do not think it’s a good idea to give an obviously and demonstrably immoral Gods respect but many theists do.

The power to make human laws should never be given to our immoral gods. Especially Yahweh and Allah, who I think are the bottom of the barrel on morals.

Human law seeks to be moral and humane and should never be putrefied by the immoral Gods that mankind has create in our image.

To do so would be insane.

So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers, --- something I do not understand.

Why you and I call our gods, “God”, --- when he is such an immoral character, --- fictional or not?

Are we such immoral entities ourselves? I am immoral. Are you?

Regards
DL


P.S. When you reply, I might have to do this to those who will not answer from the heart and try to use their holy book of myths and turn to preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8

Remember also my fellow religionists and believers, all clergy of all faiths are liars. God himself told me this when he told me to think more demographically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

The stereotypical serpent flits tongue not so forked as he had hoped.

I sympathize with your need for reassurance. That being said, in this issue of Pacifiers For Atheists an genuine attempt will be made to pick yours up off the floor for you and place it snuggly back on the high chair tray. Disclaimer: if you throw it back down there again, on the floor is where it shall remain, for your own good.

God is beyond morality and yet, God is morality embodied; an all encompassing "Over-Spirit". God is also a hierarchy of Spirit and Flesh and Matter. We mortal transients in this physical, living world were created in the physical and spiritual image of God as temporary living beings who first embodied a part of the living God ignorant of right and wrong; good and evil. That ignorance was shattered rather quickly not long after our creation. From that point forward to the present, we have existed generation after generation "in the know" so to speak, of the difference between primal/fundamental right and wrong; good and evil.

With the awareness of right and wrong came the indelible, inherent, indwelling spirit of free will. With the God given internal scales of free will we mortal humans can embody either good or evil through our choice of actions. However, there was and is a catch. Acting on our free will results in consequence for whatever behavior we choose. Action; reaction. Cause; effect. You could go out among your fellow mortal humans this moment, harm thousands of them and justify away the practice of your free will in this manner however you chose. But there would be consequences; you, as a mortal created living being would pay one hell of steep price.

Perhaps, so would your next several generations pay a price for your actions as well.

God is an "Un-Created" being--the first embodiment of actionable sentience. Like it or not (you can't do a damn thing about it either way), God is our first and ultimate Father and authority figure. What tendency is first among early childhood behaviors? Questioning our father's ability to do things he commands us not to do. But why can our fathers do things they tell us not to do? Because when we are young children our fathers have more wisdom and understanding about the workings of the physical world. God being the first, most authoritative Father imaginable knows better--has more wisdom of our world, the entire universe; of the physical and spiritual layers of both. His knowledge and wisdom is infinite; ours--even at the height of our nuclear/information Age, is pathetically finite. Perhaps if our race lives and experiences the physical and spiritual worlds for another few billion generations our collective species knowledge will equate to a drop or two in the oceans of God's wisdom.

So how, as children, do we often justify to ourselves and to others our bad behaviors? We justify lighting up that cigarette because dad smokes, right? We cross the street without looking both ways because that's how dad crosses it. But do we really know better than our fathers? What about biological or adoptive mortal father's who abuse us? I would argue that such pathetic excuses for earthly fathers still retain greater wisdom than ourselves--their children--as there is great wisdom in the genetic material handed down to us at conception. That wisdom includes a small part of the Logos present since our species creation, and it also includes tens of thousands of years of instinct. There's just no way any single individual one of us can "know better" than that primordial aspect of what is handed down to us from our biological fathers. You dig?

Much like our biological fathers "knowing better" than we do as children and adults, God, as ultimate father and authority figure, and in the context of our race as His children, cannot hope to ever know better or possess more wisdom. Not wanting to admit to or recognize the existence of an ultimate authority figure in our lives is understandable, and yet we do so every day as sons and daughters who obey and love our parents to some degree (honor they mother and father), and as law abiding citizens of our respective societies and communities.

True obedience to authority, however, originates within ourselves. Yes, we have free will and yes some societies allow us more personal freedom than others. However, without the foundation balance of personal responsibility (or self-editing our own behaviors), free will can only lead to consequences for bad actions which will eventually swallow our lives whole. At the very top of the hierarchy of personal responsibility is God. But there are many, many layers of it in between us here living on the terra firma of the mundane and the Father both within us and without of us and in all things around us.

Morality begins with us and ends with God.

And lastly: God, as the ultimate Father and authority figure stands outside out mortal philosophies or understanding of moral and amoral, right and wrong, good and evil acts, because His choices to do whatever act are for reasons we cannot comprehend but can certainly guess at as theologians have been doing for millennia. The acts of men cannot be blamed on God, only on the exercising of other men's free will for the benefit or harm of the rest of the world. God has given us free will. The consequences for how we use it are on us. However, as ultimate Father, can we not strive to understand how He would from time to time discipline us--His children--and intervene on our behalf, for own good whether we like it or not, understand his reasoning or not?

End of the day, accusations against God are like arrows flung into the abyssal darkness of the unfathomable. Trying to "hurt" God's feelings is akin to pummeling the ocean's surface with your fists. On the other hand, attempts to sever another person's faith from God are just as futile; once a man or woman has accepted God from without to that part of God inherent within, and has begun on the lifelong path to eternal salvation, whether or not he or she stops believing matters not. Leaving God then is forever a choice out of their hands; forever in the hands of the Eternal.

TLDR

 

[SavannahMann]

Is the Farmer immoral who slaughters a chicken for dinner? For we mere mortals are essentially the same. The farmer cares for the livestock. But when it is time, the farmer also sees the livestock killed, or sold to be killed. Many Vegans would argue that this is immoral, but isn’t it equally questionable to consume living matter to live? If it is Lettuce, or porridge, we eat things that were alive, and we must to survive.

Saying that we are cruel to the Shrimp that is hauled from the sea. Now, we are talking about a Deity. A creature or being that is impossibly powerful. With the snap of a finger, this Being could wipe us all from existence. Even if we are little more than pets to this Being does it make the being immoral? Is it because the Being does not give us all riches and wonders to our hearts content?

Let’s say you have a dozen dogs, and you care for them, and take them to the Vet for their shots and check ups. One develops Cancer. Are you immoral because you don’t cure the cancer? Are you cruel because you put the dog to sleep? Should you be judged by the law of the dog pack because they say so? If they turned on you, and attacked you, would you be immoral for beating or even killing the dogs?

Your entire premise is flawed. You consider yourself equal to a God you don’t believe in. You have decided they are immoral by your standards, and would instantly object if the dog bit you as the animal is not worthy to sink its teeth into your flesh. You would rage when the cat slashed you with its claws. You consider yourself a caring pet owner. But what right do you have to own a pet? Well, this man’s law you say is superior, considers you the owner and holds you responsible if the pet does not get the required vaccinations. If the pet attacks another, you are liable by law. Does this mean you are a failed God, worthy of death because you let a lesser being attack an equal, or because you lorded your superiority over the lesser being?

Either you believe in God, and accept that there is wisdom you can not really understand, or you don’t, and attack those who do believe for whatever reasons you can imagine. Wisdom we can’t understand is important to get. A century ago, the idea of Black Holes was laughed at. A century ago, the idea of many Galaxies was insane. A mere hundred years ago, cancer was an automatic death sentence. Today, you have a chance. Is God cruel because He does not cure cancer? Or is God like a stern parent, insisting that the Child figure out the math problem on their own, to learn the lessons they’ll need in the future. Was God cruel because he did not show the Pope evidence of the rightness of Galileo? Or was God wise because he let mankind make their mistakes, and learn from them?

In the end, either you believe, or you do not. As for those who pervert the lessons handed down, how are they any different than the rest of us? Rewriting history to suit our ideals. Demanding that no one hear or think anything we disagree with. We do with our daily lives what you denounce in the faithful.

I didn’t bother watching your silly self serving videos. I can debate a straw man of my own making easily. I can play myself in Chess and win. This does not prove my brilliance. It only demonstrates my arrogance and ego. I feel sorry for you. Not because you believe or do not. But because you are arrogant enough to believe human morals are the superior force in the world, and in this you are exactly like the villains in history. They believed their ideals and beliefs were superior. They did some good, and some bad. What good do you do?

TLDR.

Mine was about as long as yours. So if you didn’t bother to read it, it really means you had no reply, and allowed it to come to my side. I bet you scrolled through looking for a Bible quote, something that you can mock. When it wasn’t there, you had no other answer.

Tell me this then, why are our morals, our moral laws based upon religious teachings? Our principles of Just War, Just use of Force, and Just Defense are based upon the teachings of St. Augustine, a Religious man. The idea that if you fail to follow the law, because the law is unjust, or wrong, you are not committing a crime is from St. Augustine as well. So the foundation of Justice is based upon Religious teachings, and you claim it is somehow proof of our superior morals.

Religious people helped shape our view of the Universe. The great scientists who opened our eyes to so much were generally speaking, people of faith. There are some notable exceptions, but it is curious that so many were religious.

Caring for the poor, certainly a moral effort and exercise of mankind, is often associated with the dedication of those of faith. Is there corruption within the ranks of the faithful? Certainly, but no more so than those who claim to be without such superstitious baggage. But those without that baggage, often call upon the faithful to be forgiving and understanding, not directly quoting the Bible, or other religious texts, when seeking absolution for their wrongs. Certainly calling upon the influence.

I always love people like you. Seriously I do. You are so certain that you are correct that you insult and mock those who do not believe just as you do. In reality you are nothing but the mirror image of those who are the most hypocritical in their faith.

Even the practice of debate can draw it’s modern incarnation to the roots lain in Ancient Greece, where people believed in their gods. In fact, Apostasy was a death penalty offense. The foundation of the ideals of the rights of man is found in one of the most religious of all societies in history. Kind of interesting isn’t it?

I suppose that is why you reject an actual discussion of the issue. You were merely here trolling someone who wanted to quote scripture to you. When you didn’t get that, you pouted and bumped your tirade to the top with TLDR. Childish, and demonstrative of your shallow beliefs and ideals.

I do like your ideals that mans moral judgement, based upon religion, should be applied to the various Deities while denouncing those who believe in the Deities. It isn’t enough for you to believe, or not, it must be that all the people must believe exactly as you do. That is the definition of Religious Intolerance, and is exactly the same mentality that existed during the lowest point of abuse of the faith. The Inquisition. It was the foundation of the Religious wars of the era. It is the foundation of the Crusades, Slavery, and so many other ills.

How is it you can denounce the faithful, demanding that their Deities be put on trial, or at least named Public Enemy Number One, if you don’t believe in the Deities? If the Deities do not exist, how can you declare them enemies? Shall we declare Bugs Bunny as an enemy? The Easter Bunny? Santa? Jack Frost and even Gaia? Aren’t these things all made up?

But lets take your argument and flip them to see if they are fair. If the Religious are the Majority, does that mean they have the right to punish you for not believing? Shouldn’t they be able to punish you and mock you incessantly for your lack of faith? I would argue no, but hey, Religion was a part of my formative years, and a foundation of my moral beliefs.

I do have one question though. Why is Richard Dawkins such a brilliant individual, a prophet if you will, while all others are not? We humans are wired to believe, but that faith should be tempered, or anchored by logic. Faith and Logic are the shoes on your feet. You get farther with both than you do with one alone. A brilliant piece of Truth from the show Babylon 5. Of course, in your case, you are not only bereft of Faith, but Logic.

 

[GreatestIam]

Is the Farmer immoral who slaughters a chicken for dinner? For we mere mortals are essentially the same. The farmer cares for the livestock. But when it is time, the farmer also sees the livestock killed, or sold to be killed. Many Vegans would argue that this is immoral, but isn’t it equally questionable to consume living matter to live? If it is Lettuce, or porridge, we eat things that were alive, and we must to survive.

Saying that we are cruel to the Shrimp that is hauled from the sea. Now, we are talking about a Deity. A creature or being that is impossibly powerful. With the snap of a finger, this Being could wipe us all from existence. Even if we are little more than pets to this Being does it make the being immoral? Is it because the Being does not give us all riches and wonders to our hearts content?

Let’s say you have a dozen dogs, and you care for them, and take them to the Vet for their shots and check ups. One develops Cancer. Are you immoral because you don’t cure the cancer? Are you cruel because you put the dog to sleep? Should you be judged by the law of the dog pack because they say so? If they turned on you, and attacked you, would you be immoral for beating or even killing the dogs?

Your entire premise is flawed. You consider yourself equal to a God you don’t believe in. You have decided they are immoral by your standards, and would instantly object if the dog bit you as the animal is not worthy to sink its teeth into your flesh. You would rage when the cat slashed you with its claws. You consider yourself a caring pet owner. But what right do you have to own a pet? Well, this man’s law you say is superior, considers you the owner and holds you responsible if the pet does not get the required vaccinations. If the pet attacks another, you are liable by law. Does this mean you are a failed God, worthy of death because you let a lesser being attack an equal, or because you lorded your superiority over the lesser being?

Either you believe in God, and accept that there is wisdom you can not really understand, or you don’t, and attack those who do believe for whatever reasons you can imagine. Wisdom we can’t understand is important to get. A century ago, the idea of Black Holes was laughed at. A century ago, the idea of many Galaxies was insane. A mere hundred years ago, cancer was an automatic death sentence. Today, you have a chance. Is God cruel because He does not cure cancer? Or is God like a stern parent, insisting that the Child figure out the math problem on their own, to learn the lessons they’ll need in the future. Was God cruel because he did not show the Pope evidence of the rightness of Galileo? Or was God wise because he let mankind make their mistakes, and learn from them?

In the end, either you believe, or you do not. As for those who pervert the lessons handed down, how are they any different than the rest of us? Rewriting history to suit our ideals. Demanding that no one hear or think anything we disagree with. We do with our daily lives what you denounce in the faithful.

I didn’t bother watching your silly self serving videos. I can debate a straw man of my own making easily. I can play myself in Chess and win. This does not prove my brilliance. It only demonstrates my arrogance and ego. I feel sorry for you. Not because you believe or do not. But because you are arrogant enough to believe human morals are the superior force in the world, and in this you are exactly like the villains in history. They believed their ideals and beliefs were superior. They did some good, and some bad. What good do you do?

TLDR.

Mine was about as long as yours. So if you didn’t bother to read it, it really means you had no reply, and allowed it to come to my side. I bet you scrolled through looking for a Bible quote, something that you can mock. When it wasn’t there, you had no other answer.

Tell me this then, why are our morals, our moral laws based upon religious teachings? Our principles of Just War, Just use of Force, and Just Defense are based upon the teachings of St. Augustine, a Religious man. The idea that if you fail to follow the law, because the law is unjust, or wrong, you are not committing a crime is from St. Augustine as well. So the foundation of Justice is based upon Religious teachings, and you claim it is somehow proof of our superior morals.

Religious people helped shape our view of the Universe. The great scientists who opened our eyes to so much were generally speaking, people of faith. There are some notable exceptions, but it is curious that so many were religious.

Caring for the poor, certainly a moral effort and exercise of mankind, is often associated with the dedication of those of faith. Is there corruption within the ranks of the faithful? Certainly, but no more so than those who claim to be without such superstitious baggage. But those without that baggage, often call upon the faithful to be forgiving and understanding, not directly quoting the Bible, or other religious texts, when seeking absolution for their wrongs. Certainly calling upon the influence.

I always love people like you. Seriously I do. You are so certain that you are correct that you insult and mock those who do not believe just as you do. In reality you are nothing but the mirror image of those who are the most hypocritical in their faith.

Even the practice of debate can draw it’s modern incarnation to the roots lain in Ancient Greece, where people believed in their gods. In fact, Apostasy was a death penalty offense. The foundation of the ideals of the rights of man is found in one of the most religious of all societies in history. Kind of interesting isn’t it?

I suppose that is why you reject an actual discussion of the issue. You were merely here trolling someone who wanted to quote scripture to you. When you didn’t get that, you pouted and bumped your tirade to the top with TLDR. Childish, and demonstrative of your shallow beliefs and ideals.

I do like your ideals that mans moral judgement, based upon religion, should be applied to the various Deities while denouncing those who believe in the Deities. It isn’t enough for you to believe, or not, it must be that all the people must believe exactly as you do. That is the definition of Religious Intolerance, and is exactly the same mentality that existed during the lowest point of abuse of the faith. The Inquisition. It was the foundation of the Religious wars of the era. It is the foundation of the Crusades, Slavery, and so many other ills.

How is it you can denounce the faithful, demanding that their Deities be put on trial, or at least named Public Enemy Number One, if you don’t believe in the Deities? If the Deities do not exist, how can you declare them enemies? Shall we declare Bugs Bunny as an enemy? The Easter Bunny? Santa? Jack Frost and even Gaia? Aren’t these things all made up?

But lets take your argument and flip them to see if they are fair. If the Religious are the Majority, does that mean they have the right to punish you for not believing? Shouldn’t they be able to punish you and mock you incessantly for your lack of faith? I would argue no, but hey, Religion was a part of my formative years, and a foundation of my moral beliefs.

I do have one question though. Why is Richard Dawkins such a brilliant individual, a prophet if you will, while all others are not? We humans are wired to believe, but that faith should be tempered, or anchored by logic. Faith and Logic are the shoes on your feet. You get farther with both than you do with one alone. A brilliant piece of Truth from the show Babylon 5. Of course, in your case, you are not only bereft of Faith, but Logic.

You are all over the place and began your initial post in a ridiculous way so yes, I skimmed but did not want to go all over the place.

If you want to chat, settle down and do not expect a wall of text in return for your post as that is what I would have to give you to cover your wild ramblings.

Regards
DL

 

[Unification]

Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand why we call immoral gods, “Gods”?

Not all gods are immoral but our mainstream ones are definitely that.

God’s law, should he/she/it ever show up, --- is supposed to become earth’s law, imposed by force, --- as need be, --- and the religious way, --- instead of sound moral arguments.

God is demonstrably not moral.

One of the more important commandments to us is that of not killing humans. God kills humans.

I assume that that law would be high on our commandment list; commands to a slave from a master. Yet God exempts himself from that good law and does this evil will and kills humans.

That commandment is a subjective position and as I can think of a few instances where killing a human would be the moral thing to do. That commandment is thus immoral.

I do not think it’s a good idea to give an obviously and demonstrably immoral Gods respect but many theists do.

The power to make human laws should never be given to our immoral gods. Especially Yahweh and Allah, who I think are the bottom of the barrel on morals.

Human law seeks to be moral and humane and should never be putrefied by the immoral Gods that mankind has create in our image.

To do so would be insane.

So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers, --- something I do not understand.

Why you and I call our gods, “God”, --- when he is such an immoral character, --- fictional or not?

Are we such immoral entities ourselves? I am immoral. Are you?

Regards
DL


P.S. When you reply, I might have to do this to those who will not answer from the heart and try to use their holy book of myths and turn to preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8

Remember also my fellow religionists and believers, all clergy of all faiths are liars. God himself told me this when he told me to think more demographically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

Nay, would be in better social interest of any society to ban atheism, and have atheism criminally punished under law of high treason, since to be in treason against God is to be in treason against all nations, and make one a public enemy and danger to society.

Is myth of the immoral that killing is a bad thing, much as ridding society of disease is not a bad thing, killing the diseased under extreme circumstances is necessary ill to save society.

If atheist, for example argue that killing 10 sodomites is wrong even if it save 100 people of dying of AIDS, then he is in self-contradiction.

And is moot point anyway, since all illegitimate killings or murders are merely atheists being atheists - even if they say they are "religious" but commit atheistic practices of rape, murder, and child molestation like the Marquis de Sade, then they are merely wolf in sheep clothing, or atheist pretending to be religious of course.

Would be like saying that one who eats at McDonalds is a "vegan", is oxymoron, so of course a true religious individual who commits murder is an oxymoron as well.

If one commit murder, then they are merely acting as a true atheist, since murder is biological impulse in animals such as the chimpanzee, which religious rightly encourage on to repress and evolve past, but not atheist who believe he is naught but feral animal and beast.

 

[GreatestIam]

Too stupid to deserve a reply.

Regards
DL

 

[Unification]

Too stupid to deserve a reply.

Regards
DL

Moot point what you think, silly rabbit. My point is that those who identify as "atheist" are only about 1% of population, and while those who identify with world religion such as Christian, Islam, or other such as HIndu or Buddhist be millions or billions, so they be evolutionary extinct like the dinsours (which is ironic no).

Most atheist be ugly white males who can't even get a girlfriend or reproduce, which is also funny, since reproducing be so easy a caveman can do it, but an ugly atheist can't? Ironic no? He he

So what "atheist" think is irrelevant outside of society or economy, and there is no reason that an nation society with a "religious" majority has to allow atheist to exist to begin with, maybe they should stop being nice and stop passively tolerating atheist, but merely censoring and shutting them down until they voluntarily acknowledge their own immorality and ignorance.

 

[GreatestIam]

To stupid to reply to.

Regards
DL

 

[Unification]

To stupid to reply to.

Regards
DL

Nay, I make point.

If organized "atheism" is not viable enough to survive without going extinct, and world religions are, then this mean that social evolution actually naturally selected against atheists, but not religions.

Meaning that religions are more evolutionary fit than atheism is... ironic no?