Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[anEvilAtheist]

How can you agree if you base yourself on something as subjective as “desirism”?

I don’t see the analogy. Under divine command theory, morality is whatever God happens to favor. However, this is not the case under desirism. Slavery is immoral regardless of my feelings about it. Even if everyone suddenly desired to be enslaved, it would still be immoral as it would thwart many very strong desires. I concede that if we were a very different species who had a strong aversion to some of the things we currently find desirable, then morality would be different. But I don’t think this means it’s subjective, at least not in the way people normally use the term. Murder is wrong regardless of whether I think it is.

Here is an example of how I see it:

“If God is one, he is one absolutely, the Hebrew Bible affirms, because not only does he exist, he must exist. The five simple words of the declaration in Exodus - “I am that I am” - suggest that God’s existence is necessary. Being what He is, God could not fail to be who He is, and being who He is, God could not fail to be.”

Taken from “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions” by the Agnostic, David Berlinski.

I don’t see why there couldn’t have been an evil God instead. But even if there could not have been one, I don’t see how the statement that God is good becomes any more meaningful. The nature of God would simply be what it is, neither good nor bad (assuming there’s no external standard). It would make just as much sense to say that God is good as it would to say God is evil.

It’s not about simply calling him good it’s about who He is and being what He is. The other point I would like to make is he did not order genocides (Canaanites still existed even after the Jews fought and defeated them) in that when the Jews went to war with the Canaanites they were fighting a people akin to the Nazis if not worse who did not wish to change their ways (these were a people who warred, sacrificed their children to false gods (demons), and ate human flesh. . . etc.).

to be continued . . . .

I guess we have different beliefs about morality, but I would have considered it immoral if, after conquering Germany, the U.S. had killed every German. But even if I believed in the death penalty and there were no good Germans like Oskar Schindler who were worthy of being spared, I would still find it morally abhorrent to slaughter all German infants. I find 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31 particularly troubling. Consider 1 Samuel 15:2-3:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’

 

[timothyjason]

What I find very curious is that they say on one hand how many have died because of religious wars, but completely blind the many more who died under non-religious forces of power.

I’ve recently given some thought to this cliche (‘more people have died in the name of religion’, etc), and concluded that more people have died because of theological ignorance. Not withstanding their belief in God, but because they are ignorant to His Word. Belief in God isn’t enough, and neither is treating Holy Scripture like a cafeteria menu. The three main Abrahamic relgions are peaceful, they shouldn’t cause evil, slaughter or war (I don’t think).

Going forward, this will be my response to this cliché.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I’ve recently given some thought to this cliche (‘more people have died in the name of religion’, etc), and concluded that more people have died because of theological ignorance. Not withstanding their belief in God, but because they are ignorant to His Word. Belief in God isn’t enough, and neither is treating Holy Scripture like a cafeteria menu. The three main Abrahamic relgions are peaceful, they shouldn’t cause evil, slaughter or war (I don’t think).

Going forward, this will be my response to this cliché.

“The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr” (Mohammed, 570-632 A.D.)