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

[French Patriot]

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

[Queenmandy85]

Show where God has killed anyone. So far as I can determine, people die from many causes, but I can't think of any instance where God has killed anyone, apart from the Iliad.

[French Patriot]

23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Show where God has killed anyone. So far as I can determine, people die from many causes, but I can't think of any instance where God has killed anyone, apart from the Iliad.

I can only show what is reported in the bible, but if you are so biblically illiterate that you do not recognize or are unaware of when Yahweh is shown to kill, then I am not interested in walking you through the bible.

I will give you this though and invite you to answer the main question of, --- what kind of God would torture and murder an innocent baby as in the King David story?

 

Regards

DL

[Queenmandy85]

On 8/8/2018 at 10:11 AM, French Patriot said:

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.

I interpreted this to mean you did not want answers based on the Bible.

[Queenmandy85]

Since God has not killed anyone in the last 2000 years, we can presume she has been rehabilitated and is no longer immoral.

If she killed someone prior to that, she would ensure that the individual would be rewarded in Heaven. 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Since God has not killed anyone in the last 2000 years, we can presume she has been rehabilitated and is no longer immoral.

If she killed someone prior to that, she would ensure that the individual would be rewarded in Heaven. 

If there is a God, it's killed everyone. 

[French Patriot]

17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I interpreted this to mean you did not want answers based on the Bible.

I do not mind biblical information that is pertinent but many Christians give a wall of meaningless text and I did specify preaching.

Further, I replied with information from the bible, as you saw before writing this post.

Regards

DL

 

[eyeball]

On 8/8/2018 at 9:11 AM, French Patriot said:

So tell me please, --- fellow religionist and believers,

You believe this stuff but you don't subscribe to it - is that your shtick?

[French Patriot]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

You believe this stuff but you don't subscribe to it - is that your shtick?

Beliefs should always remain somewhat malleable so that new information that is worthy is allowed to enter the mind.

What stuff specifically are you referring to?

And if you want an answer, then give your opinion on the O.P. so that I might get a clue as to your thinking, --- or go wanting.

Regards

DL

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by French Patriot

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

Beliefs should always remain somewhat malleable so that new information that is worthy is allowed to enter the mind.

What stuff specifically are you referring to?

The stuff of fellow religionists and believers ,

Quote

And if you want an answer, then give your opinion on the O.P. so that I might get a clue as to your thinking, --- or go wanting.

Regards

DL

I was just curious is all.  It seems futile to declare the belief as nuts and then engage it anyway.

[French Patriot]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The stuff of fellow religionists and believers ,

I was just curious is all.  It seems futile to declare the belief as nuts and then engage it anyway.

Those nutty beliefs do a lot of harm to society by creating homophobic and misogynous religions.

Do you not think engaging believers in the moral fibre of their immoral gods a worthy endeavor?

Do you not think that correcting poor thinking is a worthy endeavor given the harm those beliefs cause?

Regards

DL 

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

Those nutty beliefs do a lot of harm to society by creating homophobic and misogynous religions.

Do you not think engaging believers in the moral fibre of their immoral gods a worthy endeavor?

Do you not think that correcting poor thinking is a worthy endeavor given the harm those beliefs cause?

Regards

DL 

1. Inappropriate thinking is what does that.

2. No, doing that only plays into their hand. It acknowledges that such a thing actually exists.

3. Sure but just not this way.

[French Patriot]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. Inappropriate thinking is what does that.

2. No, doing that only plays into their hand. It acknowledges that such a thing actually exists.

3. Sure but just not this way.

1. Sure, that should be corrected if possible. Right?

2. Existence or not becomes the side issue when it is the moral fibre that is the issue. I do not care if a theist maintains his belief in whatever god he idol worships, as long as he sees the immorality in him/her/it.

3. What way would you use that has shown more success?

====================

I gave a reply elsewhere that speaks to these issues. It might be worth you reading before you reply.

==================

"Point being - we know human ignorance, we have ideas on how to deal with human ignorance that don't cause them to double-down in the wrong direction (polite persuasion being the key on not having the later happen),

We have ideas, sure, but I have seen them fail more than win out.

People are belligerent and stand by their 2 + 2 = 5 regardless of how persuasive the argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is.

Sheeple are sheeple regardless of the religion. Their bubbles are impregnable to logic and reason as their morals have been corrupted by their religious beliefs.

That is why, in Christianity's case, they can justify in their own twisted thinking the adoration of a genocidal son murdering prick of a god.

I have seen too many soft spoken good hearted people get s**t on by brainwashed sheeple, but if you have an example somewhere where you have seen a successful communication as you suggest is possible, I would be pleased to see your method at work. I am always eager to see a good intelligent dialog.

Regards
DL

P.S.
I have had a good number of lurkers tell me that their thinking changed after reading an exchange between myself and an interlocutor, but I have only a few examples where the interlocutor came to my side. I have not seen any other posters fare any better.

[Guest]

Arguing over the scriptural description of a god is like saying that Santa can't really make it to a few billion homes in one night. We all know that it is a fictitious construct written by men, so why go down this path?

8 hours ago, French Patriot said:

People are belligerent and stand by their 2 + 2 = 5 regardless of how persuasive the argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is.

Sheeple are sheeple regardless of the religion. Their bubbles are impregnable to logic and reason as their morals have been corrupted by their religious beliefs.

That is why, in Christianity's case, they can justify in their own twisted thinking the adoration of a genocidal son murdering prick of a god.

For the most part, people are indoctrinated when they are young, vulnerable and incapable of critical thought. By the time they are able to question they are part of a community that has many positive aspects and they just want to believe. Most don't question the scripture and know less about it than the average atheist. Change is slow, it requires a cultural shift. Globally religious participation is on a steady decline and as more kids in developed nations are taught to think critically about everything, in the internet age, I suspect that decline to hasten.

Quote

P.S.
I have had a good number of lurkers tell me that their thinking changed after reading an exchange between myself and an interlocutor, but I have only a few examples where the interlocutor came to my side. I have not seen any other posters fare any better.

Bullshit, but hey if you are on the side of skepticism, truth and logic then more power to you. I recommend not going into discussions expecting to change minds, just present logic and evidence. Poke holes in the logical fallacies presented by believers and in time some may question their positions, though most will not ever concede that point.

[French Patriot]

13 hours ago, Slick said:

Arguing over the scriptural description of a god is like saying that Santa can't really make it to a few billion homes in one night. We all know that it is a fictitious construct written by men, so why go down this path?

If you do not see the harm religions do with their homophobic and misogynous teachings, and the fraud they do as the more gullible send them their pension checks, then from YPOV, there would not be a reason. Do you see that harm?

13 hours ago, Slick said:

For the most part, people are indoctrinated when they are young,

Indeed. I call that child abuse. Do you?

 

13 hours ago, Slick said:

I suspect that decline to hasten.

So do I but only if those who see the evils of religion fight back.

We are still in an era where we still have religions protecting pedophiles and the general population turns a blind eye.

13 hours ago, Slick said:

Bullshit,

Make your case with examples.

Regards

DL

 

[Leon]

On 8/9/2018 at 1:13 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Show where God has killed anyone. So far as I can determine, people die from many causes, but I can't think of any instance where God has killed anyone, apart from the Iliad.

For a Believer-

It is axiomatic with believers that God created/creates ALL life.  That includes all life including humans etc., and also viruses, bacteria, prions, cancers.   God designed DNA so that it often makes mistakes replication thus birth defects, cancers etc..

Reconcile 'Gods Love' with babies cancer.   You cannot.

So God is the biggest killer of all.   A Believer might argue that the Creator has the moral right to destroy its own creations.   In that case even if you accept that, you are left with a God who may well be feared, but certainly not loved.  Saying that 'God is Love' is probably the most inaccurate idiotic statement ever.

As an atheist I have no reason to be concerned with this nonsense.   An atheist does not believe God doesn't exist.   Once again  I add this quote which I have never seen overturned.

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Epicurus circa.  250 B.C.E