The Moral Failings of Christianity - New Testament as a Shield

[John Dibble]

This is actually something I've wanted to do for a while, but I suppose jmfcst's latest prodding has motivated me to actually get around to starting it. Basically what I'm going to do here is expound on what I feel are the moral problems with Christianity. I hope to make a series out of this, but it's probably going to be rather sporadic since preaching isn't my full time job and I won't have a new sermon every Sunday. Largely this will have to do with things in scripture, but in some cases I'll be going with something historical or cultural in regards to Christianity.


Today's topic isn't the one I want to start with, but after thinking on it I can only conclude it's the one that has to come first because it's going to come up in future segments and it might as well be addressed now. It's not a matter of scripture per se, but rather about how scripture is used by many members of the Christian community. The subject is the use of the New Testament as a shield of sorts. What are they shielding against? The immoralities of the Old Testament.

Actions taken by God or by his followers under his orders in the OT are abominable and horrid. Genocide, slavery, rape, and other instances of trampling on human rights abound. I will expound upon these issues in later segments, but for now it's enough to say that I feel that these monstrous things are there and that they are not excusable. When examples of these from the Bible are given, the two most typical responses I see are that these things were symbolic and leading up to the NT and/or that the rules have changed because there's a New Covenant with God.

To digress for a moment I want to make sure it's understood that I'm not applying this to all Christians. One need only look at history and even the world today to know that it can't be applied to all Christians. For instance, I know of at least one sect of early Christians who actually saw the OT God and the NT God as completely separate deities. Of course, there are also those who don't even try to make these arguments, and in a way those ones may actually be worse because I suspect most of those that do at some level actually do think that things that occured in the OT were immoral and are trying to keep the faith without feeling bad about it. Those that don't even try to do this sort of thing just seem to have something wrong with them, like our good friends at the Westborough Baptist Church. Now, back to the two arguments.

For those who fall into the symbolism category they can be easily divided into at least two main subcategories. The first are those who think that the OT largely does not record actual events, and that the events within are just symbolic stories. I can't really find much to argue about with such people since fictional events don't have many real ethical implications - the main thing I'd have them think on is why their God chose such immoral sounding examples.

The second category is what I really wish to address. The second category are those that believe that the events in the OT are actual, historical events that are depicted accurately while at the same time being symbolic to something in regards to the coming of Jesus or something else relating to God. For instance it has been in the past argued to me that the rules regarding slavery in the Bible are symbolic to something like how we are supposed to be slaves to God and obey him, or something along those lines. The argument for symbolism in this case is utterly meaningless from an objective, ethical standpoint because if the events actually did occur and the rules given to be followed were followed then they had real world consequences on real people. If I were to murder someone in some strange manner as to prove a symbolic point, it would make me no less of a murderer.

In regards to the second argument, that the rules are now different, it is equally irrelevant that the rules are now different - if people actually suffered through the things that the OT says they did due to the actions of God or his followers, then those things reflect upon the nature of the God of the Bible. Even if the rules have changed, it does not excuse the old rules and what happened under them. A being that is proclaimed to be perfectly moral, all-powerful, and all-knowing should very well have the ability to get the rules right in the first place, and by having all three of those traits would certainly have done so. Even if I were to concede that the Christian God does exist, just from the book that is supposedly his word I would be forced to conclude that he was lacking at least one of those traits, and I would put my money on him at the very least not being perfectly moral.

Perhaps this particular issue is not a moral failing of those to whom it applies so much as an intellectual one. As I stated before, it seems to me that many of those making this argument actually do at some level think the OT is full of immoral things. These are just means by which they can rationalize them and bring them together with their NT beliefs. Since I felt these were going to come up, I figured it best to get them out of the way, because my next topic will likely delve heavily into things that are largely OT scripture subjects.

Well then, I've hoped that at least some of you have enjoyed this and it'll spur some interesting discussion or at least get some people thinking.

[John Dibble]

It seemes to me you're saying that the punishments from God are too rough.

"Too rough" is a far cry from what I'd describe some of the things as. "Abominable" comes closer to it in many cases, and just plain non-nonsensical in others. As stated, I will address more specific cases in future ones of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This argument has two problems. One is that it ignores the fact that part of what I'm speaking out against is some of these laws you're talking about. The second one is that since God was quite actively talking to people in the OT he could have educated them on these matters in question so that they would know better, but clearly he didn't.

That we "know better" today has little to do with the actual contents of the Bible if anything. People who thought about ethics outside of a Biblical framework were the ones who started the spread of those ideas for the most part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I could write up a whole bunch of stuff about this notion and why it's utterly repugnant. Might be a good future topic for the series, so I'm not going to get into it for now.

[John Dibble]

The subject is the use of the New Testament as a shield of sorts. What are they shielding against? The immoralities of the Old Testament.

Actions taken by God or by his followers under his orders in the OT are abominable and horrid. Genocide, slavery, rape, and other instances of trampling on human rights abound. I will expound upon these issues in later segments, but for now it's enough to say that I feel that these monstrous things are there and that they are not excusable. When examples of these from the Bible are given, the two most typical responses I see are that these things were symbolic and leading up to the NT and/or that the rules have changed because there's a New Covenant with God.

Question 1) if the NT is used to cover up for the OT, then what did the Christians of 30-70AD use to cover up for the OT, since they didn’t have a NT?  In other words, what was the source of the original cover up, since the NT obviously couldn’t have been the original source because it didn’t exist and all the early Christians had was the OT?

Obviously this doesn't apply to them. As I stated later in the post this isn't aimed at all Christians. For all I know this may not apply to any Christians a thousand years ago, well after the NT was available. This series is addressed towards people living today, and also as I said it doesn't even apply to all Christians living today. I'm addressing these arguments now because I think they'll be likely to come up later when I start addressing more specific things in the OT.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether or not there's an actual change in context isn't relevant - the fact is I've seen people making these arguments. IIRC I've seen you make something like them too. (I'll look up the examples later if you like, I've got to get to work soon so I don't have time to do it now. If I can't find them I'll retract the statement.)

IWell, around the time when the law was written, the Isrealites knew nothing but of slave matters. They needed these laws in order to behave themselves. Now today we know better.

This argument has two problems. One is that it ignores the fact that part of what I'm speaking out against is some of these laws you're talking about. The second one is that since God was quite actively talking to people in the OT he could have educated them on these matters in question so that they would know better, but clearly he didn't.

The problem with that argument is that the Hebrews in the OT repeatedly proved unwilling to be educated.  They most definitely used free will in contravention of God's law.

Except this comes back to God being active - in the OT he actively punished people who failed to heed his word, either directly or through his followers. He very well could have made them listen if they were so unwilling. (you also have to wonder why he would choose such a people in the first place if he wants people to actually follow him)

So you believe that people are good or neutral by default, not evil?

I don't think we're inherently one or the other, but I'd lean towards "good" if I had to choose because otherwise society just wouldn't be able to function. Evolution equipped us to survive in a much less civilized world, but even so we evolved to be social. We'll largely be good towards "in" groups, and be to some degree more aggressive against "out" groups. Aside from a few individuals like psychopaths and sociopaths who lack empathy and will therefore always be out for themselves, the bulk of humanity has the capacity for both pro-social and anti-social behavior and their personal situations will have a large influence on that.

[John Dibble]

The subject is the use of the New Testament as a shield of sorts. What are they shielding against? The immoralities of the Old Testament….
Whether or not there's an actual change in context [between the OT and NT] isn't relevant - the fact is I've seen people making these arguments. IIRC I've seen you make something like them too. (I'll look up the examples later if you like, I've got to get to work soon so I don't have time to do it now. If I can't find them I'll retract the statement.)

It’s very relevant, because if the NT doesn’t shy away from the events of the Old Testament, then people are not using the New Testament as a shield against the reality of those events, rather they are MIS-using it as a shield.  In that case, you’re singing my song, for many of my threads attempt to bring the scripture out from under the veil of political correctness.

Which is fine - either way it's a point I wanted to make, and I don't consider it relevant because my objections to the arguments don't have to do with whether the argument is actually valid in that sense. If it isn't then it just renders the argument even more invalid.


Also, as to the examples from before I can't find them - it appears there's been a purge of some of the older threads that were very long. (if you look back more than two pages on this board you'll not find any threat longer than six pages, and I think we both know we've had longer discussions than that) Since I can't find them, I won't hold you to them. If you're interested and think you can find them, the two discussions I had in mind had to do with slavery in the Bible (may have been an off-topic discussion) and the slaughter of the Midianites in Numbers 31. (I would think "Midianites" would turn up the discussion in the search function, but it doesn't, further leading me to believe it was purged)

[John Dibble]

However, God particularly pointed out in Job that he really does not have to justify himself to man. It is put forth that it is hubris that we could fully understand His will and rather that we should humble ourselves in his presence and submit to his will.

Which to me is a cop out. I mean seriously, if I murdered a bunch of people do you think it would stand as a defense in court to say that I don't have to justify myself to others? Of course not, but for some reason we're expected to give a special exception to this God character. Why? If this God character thinks himself worthy of our love, devotion, and worship then shouldn't he be expected to justify himself to us to prove that he's worthy?

Besides, if he's all-knowing and all-powerful he very well has the ability to make us understand, and if he can't then obviously he's not one of those things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, to that I have to say "so what?" - making a new covenant doesn't excuse bad things that happened in the old one, even if it's a step in the right direction. (which is in itself rather debatable given some of the things the new covenant entails)

[John Dibble]

I understand your concerns. The argument is God doesn't feel to need to explain his actions to you.  After all he created the heavens, stars, planets and you. The premise is that you cannot begin to understand the ways of the universe and should submit to his plan/will. This is not unique to Christianity as Islam means to submit.

The new covenant is God fulfilling his plan on earth. Branching off from the other argument, I don't think God feels the need to excuse or explain certain things to you. You must have Faith in his greater plan and accept his Son as savior and redeemer. For an inquisitive person this is a frustrating scenario. However, an argument would be that it is hubris that our mortal minds could even begin to understand God's universe.

I'm sorry, but these arguments basically equate to saying "stop asking questions, you'll never understand anyways - just shut up and comply because he's got lots of power". I know you don't mean it that way, but that's what the argument boils down to. Even if I had reason to believe in this deity, I wouldn't consider him worthy of putting my faith in given his track record.

[John Dibble]

And to pick on Patricks point, God getting away with actions 'because he's God' is not a satisfactory answer. It's the theological equivalent of 'Why? because it just is.'

This reminds me of that Holocaust play where they put God on trial.

The relation of God to man in the Abrahamic faiths is that of a parent to a child and not that of peers.  Just as our parents have rules that we do not fully understand- so too does God. Faith requires a level of obedience. As time goes by in our life and with reflection certain rules of our parents become more clear to us. A contemplative and open approach to God and his plan also opens windows of insights for us mortals. However, the key for religious people is to be available when God calls. I fully understand that this is view is a whole lot of mumbo jumbo to many people. I'm clearly no theologian or proselytizer, but this is how I view things.

There are again quite a few problems with this argument.

The first is that the analogy doesn't show God being a particularly good parent. Good parents encourage their kids to ask "why?" rather than simply accepting "because I said so, now stop asking questions because you couldn't possibly understand the answers". A child that actually understands why the rules are there and agrees that they are justified is far more likely to follow them.

There's also the matter that in most cases there's a rather clear benefit to obeying your parents and having faith in them. The feed you, cloth you, shelter you, protect you from harm, etc. There will be rules as well, but most of these rules will have a meaning that shouldn't be too difficult for a child to understand. Those who have faith in their parents have it because their parents have shown themselves to be worthy of it.

Possibly one of the biggest failures in this analogy is the fact that God depicted in the Bible treats us not like children but as property, often like toys for his amusement. I can think of no better example of this than the story of Job - the man is put through immense suffering. God even lets Satan murder Job's kids and servants! Why? Essentially it's because he had a bet with Satan that Job would be loyal no matter what. Why should we accept this injustice without explanation? If I had a child do you think it would be acceptable for me to let my neighbor beat him, steal his toys, and kill his puppy to prove that my child would love me no matter what I let happen to him, no matter how I abused him? NO! Of course not. If I wasn't lynched by an angry mob then at the very least I'd be thrown in jail and my child taken away from me, and rightfully so.

[John Dibble]

By the way, Dibble, what faith are you? And do you realize that the Old Testament is much less organized than the New Testament, things came from different sources (Job is said to have come from places such as Arabia), and that not everything is literal/and/or true in the Old Testament?

As mentioned I am an atheist. To be specific I'm an agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any god or gods, but I'm open enough to consider that something that I might consider to be a god might exist since I don't know enough about the universe to claim for certain it doesn't. Currently though I'm lacking any good evidence for that, so unless such evidence is presented to me I don't believe in any gods any more than I believe in any other mythical being.

As to the OT I'm well aware that much of it isn't true, especially in the literal sense. Science has shown things like that the Earth and the universe in general took more than six literal days to be made and is far older than a few thousand years, or that there was no world wide flood as indicated in Noah. I'm also aware that at least some of the OT stories may well have been borrowed or otherwise inspired by the stories of other cultures. There is likely some degree of history there, such as some of the names and deeds of certain kings and whatnot, but it's muddled together claims of miracles and and active deity which makes it rather difficult to determine truth from fiction in some cases, requiring outside archeological sources to confirm any of it. The NT has the same problem - there's no outside confirmation for the divinity of Jesus, so while I think there was probably a historical Jesus I don't have any reason to believe he was divine.

The reason I do argue about it in a literal sense (aside from what's obviously use of metaphor) is because that's the way it was meant to be taken, and it's the way that the majority of it's adherents have taken it for millenia and continues in many people even today. The stories of creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, Job, etc. were meant to be taken as real history, and thus they reflect upon the morals posited by the religion. I realize that many Christians don't consider these to be literal history anymore, but this is more of a recent trend brought about by advances in science that are based on evidence. Even with the mountains of evidence against the claims, many adherents still refuse to believe it isn't literally true.

[John Dibble]

How can you be an athiest and argue about morals? Where do you get the sense that morals can logically exist, and that you of all people are right?

It's true that as an atheist I don't subscribe to the view that there's some deity out there that is in one fashion or another dictating what is or is not moral. My basis for morals have to come from elsewhere. Fortunately we humans don't need an outside source - our own nature gives us at least some basis for moral behavior. We evolved to be social animals, and as part of that all but a few have empathy for one another, which allows us to develop compassion. (the exception is sociopaths and psychopaths, who lack empathy)

From there we can build our moral principles on things like the Golden Rule and utilitarianism, using facts and logic to determine what we think is or is not moral. Of course, people have different perspectives and different desired outcomes, so I can't say that my particular morality is right for everyone, nor can I say that I think it's always going to be right for me - since I don't know everything it's likely that I'll receive new information in the future which will require that I change some aspect of my morality. Even if it might not be 100% correct, what I can say about my moral system is that I believe that if people were to adhere to it that it would produce results that are desirable and fair to most individuals, and to a far greater extent than the one advanced in the Bible.

If you are interested in learning a bit more about secular morality and have a free hour and a half I advise watching this lecture. It goes into the subject a bit more.

[John Dibble]

As a strong believer in the existence of God, I have a few questions, though I have a feeling you don't want this thread converted into an Atheism vs. Religion thread:

Actually it's not trouble at all - in a way it's on topic, because the entire premise of these thread and the threads that will follow it is based on the perspective of my own secular morality. Also, as long as questions are asked with an honest desire to learn I think they deserve answering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Big Bang Theory describes the formation of our universe as far back as we can see. We have found that the universe is consistent with the predictions made by the theory thus far, so we have every reason to think it's accurate. The major question at this point is "What caused the Big Bang?" - and I stress the use of the word "what" because if you used "who" you are limiting the possibilities without reason for limiting them.

My answer to the question is pretty much "I don't know", which is the only honest answer I can give since the scope of my knowledge is limited. I can tell you a few things though. The first is that asking what happened "before" the Big Bang may be a poorly asked question, since time as we know it may not have existed at that point. Time is interwoven with space, and before the Big Bang there was possibly no "space" as we know it. We literally have to start thinking outside the box, the box being our universe. The second is that there have been advances in the field of quantum mechanics that may be helping us answer these questions. I don't actually understand quantum mechanics that well, but a few prominent physicists have made the claim that the laws of quantum mechanics make a creator God redundant* in the birth of our universe. IIRC Stephen Hawking made this claim in his latest book, The Grand Design. (I haven't read it, though I've heard good things)

*Note - Redundant does not mean that one couldn't have been involved, it just means that it wouldn't be a necessary component.

I hate to point you at another hour long lecture, but I'm going to. A Universe From Nothing is one of my favorite lectures (I've actually watched it multiple times) so if you have time to watch it I highly recommend it as it gives a pretty good crash course in this subject matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, we're not entirely random. Evolution works primarily on two processes - mutation and natural selection. Mutation occurs at a predictable rate, but where it occurs in an organism's genome is random. Natural selection is non-random - it always favors traits that enable organisms to better survive and reproduce.

Now, as to purpose, it's a matter of fact that we kind of big bags of amino acids, proteins, and chemical reactions. That said, we're still conscious. We still have desires, thoughts, emotions, etc. Even if there isn't some creator deity out there that wants us to fulfill some purpose, our own nature enables us to make a purpose for ourselves. Even without believing in a god, I still want to live, enjoy my life, help others, learn, have family and friends, etc. Living our lives wholeheartedly for the sake of ourselves and our fellow human beings, to me at least, is purpose enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated earlier, we have the emotion of empathy. If you or I see an innocent person suffering, empathy makes us feel their pain and will often give rise a desire to help them. Because of this we also consider not to do bad to people, because causing pain to others makes us feel bad - empathy serves us as a conscience. Of course we do have other emotions which lead to us doing bad things to other people, but civilization couldn't possibly work if those factors had a greater influence than empathy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, it comes down to empathy. Most of us don't want others to suffer for no reason. I don't want to be killed, so I don't go around killing others because I believe they also don't want to be killed, so essentially I recognize the right of others to live. Other rights can be arrived at by similar thinking. Some of them we have to think harder about, and require the use of greater logic, but empathy is still at the core of it. You'll note that the most tyrannical societies in history and even still today that do not recognize basic human rights tend to be lead by psychopaths and sociopaths, who lack empathy.

In regards to logic, logic holds true regardless of whether or not humans can conceive of them. We humans are simply able to use logic because we've evolved the intelligence to do so - our intelligence allows us to go beyond what our base instincts tell us to do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because a logical person recognizes that there are consequences in this world. I certainly want to have a good time, but if I do so at the expense of others there are problems. The first one is that since I have empathy I'll feel bad because I'm doing harm to others, and the second one is that if I do harm to others they'll be more inclined to do harm to me, both of which would not be compatible with enjoying life. Also, as mentioned if I see another human being in pain my empathy will prompt me to help them to some degree or another, which would get in the way of a purely hedonistic lifestyle as I'd have to spend time and resources to do so. Also, if I have people I care about deeply, such a children, I'm going to want them to enjoy their lives as well so I'd be inclined to make some sacrifices to ensure they'll be able to even after I'm gone.

When it comes down to it hedonism is fine every once in a while, but I don't think most human beings would find such a life fulfilling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know. If there is a god, what the hell is it doing here?

[John Dibble]

By immortal conequences I mean a Heaven/Hell scenario.

Yes, I realized that. As I said, even without that there are consequences in this world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I supposed when it boils down to it, yes. But if you think about it that's pretty amazing - that mere chemicals could produce emotion, art, literature, science, and all of the other things that humanity has done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've heard that too. I've also heard the Jesus was just a prophet but not the son of God. I've also heard that he was just an ordinary Jewish man, and not divine in any way. I've heard that he "hates fags", and that he doesn't. I've heard many things in regards to religious claims, many contradictory and incompatible with one another, even within the same religion. There are various religions in the world, and all of them claim to be true, but all of them can't be true because they make contradictory claims. The one thing that I find in common with all of them though is that they lack evidence for their claims, hence why I don't believe any of them.

I have an idea of what you believe, though I can't be exactly sure of the particulars since there are so many variations of Christianity. I can be sure that you believe a few central tenets though. So my question to you is why do you believe it? I also ask that you take some time to think on it before answering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't say for certain whether or not there's an afterlife, but I can say that this life inevitably comes to an end. An afterlife promises an infinitely long life, but in a way that makes each particular moment infinitely less valuable. If on the other hand life is truly finite, then that makes each moment infinitely more valuable. In the here and now, my existence is not pointless to me because I value it, and that's good enough as far as I'm concerned. And after that? After I'm dead? The best thing I've ever heard on that is credited to Mark Twain:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

[John Dibble]

Dibble, your argument is civil, but is summed up in the following:  you have a problem with God’s judgment, for all those acts you find horrendous as explicitly stated as God’s judgment. 

How can he have a problem with gods judgment if he does not accept that the god exists? He has raised issues with that gods actions as outlined in the NT, but as he does not believe it exists it excerts no level of authority that would qualify it as a judgment.

[trap sprung]...well, if Dibble ignores the context in that it was God's judgment, then Dibble is the one CHANGING THE CONTEXT and "COVERING UP" and "SHIELDING" what the bible actually says.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Even if I accepted that he did exist my problem with "his judgment" would still exist. I don't think just because a being is really powerful it excuses rather obvious failings, especially moral ones. That is only made more inexcusable if the being is extremely knowledgeable, something which is almost universally attributed to the Christian god. But really it comes down to this:

Just because you think that your deity is perfect does not mean I am required to think the same way.

[John Dibble]

we're saying the same thing - you have to keep it in context in order to judge it.  so, if you keep it in the context of a judgment of God, then what you are saying is that you have a problem with God's judgment.

Okay... so what? Do you have a point that actually refutes any of my arguments? It's either the word of God and I'm judging it or it's the word of man and I'm judging it. Either way I'm still judging it for it's rather apparent moral failures.

agreed?

WTF? I don't respond within less than ten minutes and you feel that you need to post a second post to prompt a response?

[John Dibble]

(the New Testament can't be used as a shield because it does not water down the OT judgment, rather it magnifies them infinitely - eternal condemnation. So, why are you focused on God ending earthly life while ignoring eternal punishment?  Wouldn’t God’s eternal judgment be a better target of your disapproval?)

As I stated earlier, whether or not the Christians that are making the argument with the correct Biblical context or not does not change the fact that they are making it. Even if you disagree with this type of argument, they still make it, and I do expect that in future threads on this it will come up so I felt it necessary to address it now rather than multiple times in multiple threads - that way I can just point to this thread.

In regards to eternal punishment, I also have problems with that notion. It will be a subject of one of the later threads in this series.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's what you wish me to address I'll be getting into specific subjects in later threads in the series. Subjects will include slavery, mistreatment of women, eternal punishment, certain killing by God and in his name within the Bible, and a few other subjects, not necessarily in that order. Treatment of homosexuals might be included, but seeing as that's been argued to death here in this forum for quite a few years now and it's likely nothing new would be said it'll either come late in the series or be stuffed into another topic if I address it at all.

The next topic will probably be slavery and how it's addressed in the Bible, if you feel the need to brush up on that content. I'll probably start the thread sometime later in the week.

[John Dibble]

well, if the only issue of this thread is dufus-Christians misusing the NT to ignore the OT, then it isn't a moral failure of Christianity at all, rather it's an argumentative failure.

If you'll go back and read towards the end of my opening post, you'll see that I addressed this.

[John Dibble]

1) If Islam is the one, then a large majority of us are screwed.

That's the case if the Christian one is the one as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On what basis do you believe that? The Bible indicates otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already refuted this argument, but it's apparent you don't agree. I suggest you actually take the time to go out and meet some atheists and get to know them - you might be surprised.

[John Dibble]

1) However, there's a larger amount of people in Christianity than in Islam

Only by about half a billion, give or take a hundred million. The current world population is 6.7 billion. The estimated number of Christians is 2 to 2.2 billion. Do the math - over half aren't either of those things. If either of those religions are true, then most of us are screwed either way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I've heard those things but frankly it's a rather new way of thinking in Christianity. Historically the majority view has been that you have to be a faithful believer in this life to be saved, a view many still hold today, and from what I know of the Bible the scripture supports that view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll not really get to know an atheist through a message board. Suffice to say I know quite a few atheists and largely we live our lives the same as anyone else. This applies to the ones versed in logic as well. The only significant difference as far as I can tell is that we do get to sleep in on Sundays if we want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I don't think that an atheist would think life is "sacred" in any kind of religious context, rather important and something to be preserved as best possible. After all, we're life too. Human life at that, so we behave as humans evolved - with empathy, so we care about each other. One of the joys of being an intelligent social animal.

[John Dibble]

Dibble must be glad. He's posted only one topic on the "moral failings of Christianity", and already he's up to five pages.

I'm happy with the discussion thus far, but mainly because it's been rather cordial and seems to have been thought provoking and interesting for a number of people. Just being long doesn't necessarily mean a discussion has content.

[John Dibble]

It seems like you're saying that atheism says "Look, religion, we don't know how the univerese was created, but we know for a fact that it didn't involve any deity". That doesn't sound like a very reasonable statement to my ears.

Allow me to clarify - what I said is that our current understanding of quantum mechanics makes a deity redundant in the creation of the universe. By redundant I mean that it isn't a necessary component. A deity may very well have been involved, but what we do know indicates that it would not have to have been a part of it. Of course, there are still gaps in our knowledge, like knowing why the laws of quantum mechanics exist. Still, there is no evidence for there being some kind of intelligence creating them, so it isn't logically sound to assume that there was.

[John Dibble]

How?

As I'm not as versed in quantum physics, I can't really give a good answer. You might get more details if you were to read Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design. Ultimately though there are things we just don't know. That said, just because it seems to "make sense" that there's an intelligent being that is responsible for it all does not mean it's logical to assume that it's true - the actual answer may be completely different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Pointless" and "lonely" are terms we humans attribute to things. Even if we weren't created with intent, we still value our lives - we can give our own lives meaning. Also, we aren't really lonely considering we have each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't worry about it - it seems you know more than most.

In response to afleitch, where did the alien come from? How did the time traveler get there? Where did the fish get his magnificent powers?

Nothing does not make as much relevant sense as God. God means that this came from somewhere, nothing means that everything we do is the result of the randomness of the universe which was created, somehow, by nothing.

The same questions you ask about those solutions all apply to the God claim. Where did God come from? How did God get there? Where did God get his magnificent powers? You could exchange any number of things in place of God - fairies, spirits, nothing, etc. While some of them seem more absurd than others, they all leave the exact same unanswered questions, which is why none of them make any more sense logically than any other.

As I said, there are things that we just don't know. Not knowing is not an excuse to insert any random thing that pleases our aesthetic tastes. Doing so is called the argument from ignorance* fallacy, known in this case as the God of the Gaps fallacy. Since there are things we don't know, the important thing to do when we wish to find out is to ask the right questions. "Who created the universe?" is the wrong question to ask if you don't have any actual evidence that it was a "who" - this question eliminates possibilities unnecessarily. The right question is "What created the universe?" It's entirely possible we may never find out, but if we don't we just need to accept that we don't know and move on, not make things up and throw them into the gaps in our knowledge.

[John Dibble]

Again, just because the answer seems to make sense to you doesn't mean you should accept it as being true. The idea of a creator deity creating us with a purpose is appealing, but just because you would like it to be true does not make it true.