How can religion be evil?

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

And you conveniently dodged answering these questions...

AJ777: “My opinion is that torturing children for fun is not now and will never be a morally right action.

But please answer my questions.

Do you torture your children by forcing the Bible down their throats? Do you torture your children by forcing them to believe in that immoral monster in the Bible? Do you torture your children by telling them they were born evil/sinful? Do you torture your children with the threat of Hell unless they behave as you tell them to behave instead of letting them be the children they are?

And if you have no children, please do not reproduce.

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
@AJ777 has still not

@AJ777 has still not explained how it is possible to tell the difference between Joshua committing genocide in the Old Testament because he allegedly believed god told him to, and Hitler killing Jews after claiming Jesus as an inspiration, and Abraham being willing to slaughter a human because god allegedly told him to.

Sheldon's picture
There hasn't been enough time

There hasn't been enough time for Christians to rationalise Hitler back into the flock sadly.

Too recent a past for rationalisations to work effectively, even on the sheeple of this vapid superstition. Give it time though...along with the Jewish victims of Hitler's holy holocaust, the mass murder of children in Egypt, global genocide and more than one barbaric instance of ethnic cleansing don't seem to cause any moral angst among Christians. Even mainstream apologists like William Lane Craig have no problem publicly stating biblical genocide does not represent immorality if condoned, sanctioned or perpetrated by that biblical deity.

Let's not forget the largest Christian church cooperated with a Concorde with Nazism before the first gas chamber or chrematoria were built. Despite Hitler detailing his plans for Jews and certain other ethnic groups in Mein Kampf including his claim to be "doing God's work". As an atheist I can't fail to notice he was doing that work much as the bible portrays the deity doing it as well, if a little bit more mechanized.

Talyyn's picture
The largest Church did not

The largest Church did not bat an eye on 400 years of transatlantic slave trade and missionaries were used by Britain and France, my country, in the process of colonizing Africa and most of Asia.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Is it objectively moral to physically and psychologically terrorize children to believe in the Bible?

rmfr

EDIT: misspelling

Sheldon's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777

"Why in your opinion is it not morally acceptable to torture children?

If as you claim torturing children is an objectively immoral act, why according to the bible did your deity torture King David's new born baby to death?

Is slavery ever morally acceptable? If not why does the bible condone it repeatedly, including Jesus entreating slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones?

Still no attempt from you to answer any of these??

AJ777's picture
Am I required to answer every

Am I required to answer every question posted by every person on this thread to the satisfaction of every questioner?

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Yes.

Else you can simply go back to mommy and whine about how us horrible atheist spanked you so hard.

rmfr

LogicFTW's picture
Are you finding it

Are you finding it increasingly difficult to answer these questions?

Ever stop to wonder why?

Perhaps because your answers have to get more and more convoluted to answer the questions, twisting yourself in a pretzel to try and answer them?

Already in your defense of your religion you twisted yourself in a pretzel enough to basically admit that the bible is indeed a pack of lies and nothing said in the bible can be taken at face value, whats next? God is only real to people that believe in it just the right way? How far will you twist yourself to try to make the entire ridiculous concept work in your head?

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

NewSkeptic's picture
That is a large burden, so I

That is a large burden, so I'll help you.

Here is the answer to Arakish's question regarding 2 Kings 2. I took it right from http://www.bibleexplained.net.

" 23 - Children mocked Disrespect for both the Lord's messenger and His miracle. Children and adults need to show reverence for God's name. "Bald" means "white" in older English. The Hebrew word for "bald head" is qereqch"

See, not so hard. Just yell it out man, "those damn children deserved it!!!"

Sheldon's picture
You could have answered

You could have answered easily in the time it took you to type that evasive bs.

You claimed it was "your opinion that it was immoral to torture children".

Why?

Do you really think we don't know why you won't answer this?

Sheldon's picture
Is there any particular

Is there any particular reason you don't want to answer why you think it immoral to torture children? Is it because you know that if your moral claim is based on reason it undermines your claim that morality can only come from an external supernatural source?

Refusing to answer in this way is of course an answer as it displays a lack of a cogent explanation.

AJ777's picture
LogicFTW, only if absolute

LogicFTW, only if absolute truth in morality and reality exists can the Bible be a pack of lies.

LogicFTW's picture
So a word salad response then

So a word salad response then.

Do you have any idea what you even tried to write, or did you just try to cobble some absolutist religious apologist buzzwords together threw them at the wall and see what sticks?

And I am only stating what you have said. Do you really need me to go back through your responses and copy and paste what you wrote about the bible?

"absolute truth in morality and reality" What? How do those words used in that order ever actually make any sense for anything?

Do you run in front of a speeding train and say "only absolute truth in morality and reality exist can this train be real!" What do you expect will happen when you do so? You will only believe the train is real and not a lie in the few seconds you remain alive in pieces after the train runs you over? Or not even then?

You may not be aware of it, but for anyone else reading this thread your arguments and defenses increasingly become the material of what people say in the insane asylum, people that have lost so much grip on reality they have to be protected from themselves.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

arakish's picture
"So a word salad response

"So a word salad response then."

And don't forget CyberLN's Razor with that...

CyberLN's Razor: A nice vinaigrette dressing must be served with any word salad.

rmfr

CyberLN's picture
AJ777, you wrote, “LogicFTW,

AJ777, you wrote, “LogicFTW, only if absolute truth in morality and reality exists can the Bible be a pack of lies.”

Does this mean that if your absolute truth in morality and reality (whatever the hell that is) does not exist then for me to say I’m 29 years old is not a lie?

AJ777's picture
Depends on how old you are.

Depends on how old you are.

CyberLN's picture
I’m not 29.

I’m not 29.

Sheldon's picture
"LogicFTW, only if absolute

"LogicFTW, only if absolute truth in morality and reality exists can the Bible be a pack of lies."

Rubbish, truth is validated by objective evidence, absolute truth can't exist.

AJ777's picture
Sheldon, again you’re

Sheldon, again you’re claiming its absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist. This is clearly self defeating. So truth must exist. In denying absolute truths existence one can only end up affirming it.

Sheldon's picture
"Sheldon, again you’re

"Sheldon, again you’re claiming its absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist."

No I'm not, you;re either lying or have an execrable grasp of English. It is an epistemological fact that absolute truth is impossible, something can be a fact and yet remain tentative.

I also explained that absolute truth in the sense arakish meant is 100% certainty. Are you misunderstanding this on purpose?

ONe last time a statement can be objectively true beyond any reasonable doubt, but we still cannot be absolutely certain.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Sheldon, again you’re claiming its absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist. This is clearly self defeating. So truth must exist. In denying absolute truths existence one can only end up affirming it.

Do you EVER stop and think about what you are typing before posting? Gee whiz!

Truth is measured on a scale of 0 to 1, giving an infinite number of fractions or decimals. Truth of a rank of 1.00 cannot be achieved. All we can do is to obtain enough objective hard empirical evidence to get as close to 1.00 as possible. For example, if I were to say the sky is blue, that has a raning of 0.9900000100000... due to the fact that I could wait until sunset and say that the "Belt of Venus" is making a beautiful show of brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple. Thus, dependent on the frame reference, I would be correct 99 times out of a 100 (0.99) to say the sky is blue. Even though it may seem to be 1.00, nothing is absolutely free from even the smallest margin of error. Thus, when it comes to truth, we use the Scientific Method to get as close to 0.999 as we can possibly get. The only thing that is absolute is a lie which would be 0.00. Much like religion which is full of hope, but completely empty of promise.

Religions may have some truthful statements, but religion itself is the Greatest and Purest Evil Lie ever concocted by any humans in all of history. AND REMEMBER, there is a HUGE difference between religion having truthful statements and that religion itself is the lie.

In denying absolute truths existence one can only end up affirming it.

And please do explain how you actually came up with this Circular Logic Fallacy? Are you even going to download and reference Rhetological Fallacies? Or are you too much of a coward to "face the music"?

Then again, you have committed all of these lies...

Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:

  1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state.
  4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. They LIE by using distorted and perveted data.
  7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. They LIE by changing the subject.
  13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

A statement of something can NEVER be the proof of that something. This is another way of describing the Circular Logic Fallacy. Something you are guilty of committing in each and every post you have made in this thread.

Is it not embarrassing to you to know that everything you have posted is fallacious?

rmfr

Diotrephes's picture
I think that AJ777 deserves a

I think that AJ777 deserves a basket of kudos for generating such passionate interest over a rather bland two sentence OP that it has received over 450 replies in 5 days. Without his input we wouldn't have anything to discuss. Well done AJ777. I look forward to your next OP.

Sheldon's picture
We're discussing something? I

We're discussing something? I see him repeating the same unevidenced claims over and over, and then ignoring all objections and questions.

He's started a thread to preach to atheists about the superiority of his religion's morality, but can't even explain why he thinks it's wrong to torture children to death. Indeed he won''t even say if it was morally wrong in the bible for his deity to torture a newborn baby to death, just keeps dodging the question clamming atheists don't believe it happened as if that matters.

Diotrephes's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

"Indeed he won''t even say if it was morally wrong in the bible for his deity to torture a newborn baby to death, just keeps dodging the question clamming atheists don't believe it happened as if that matters."

If there was such a creature as the biblical Jealous why wouldn't he torture a newborn baby to death? He told the dummies to toss their children into the fire as sacrifices and they were stupid enough to do it. Remember, according to the fairy tale when Adam & Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil man then became like Jealous and knew the difference between good and evil. So if that is true why would you participate in acts that you know are evil? The Jealous character said that the dummies should have told him to go f himself instead of throwing their kids into the fire. So when the Jealous character does evil people should curse him for it because they know the difference between good and evil whoever does it.

And if such a deity exists why would anyone think that suffering babies are real? They could be imaginary to see how people will react to such evil things. After all, the deity supposedly made the entire universe in six days so where do you draw the line on what is real and what is imaginary and a delusion? It is the ultimate mind game.

The biblical God character kills far more people than he saves. He is not a nice guy but rotten to the bone.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

I see you are using the typical Religious Absolutist ploy of shifting the burden of proof, argumentum ad ignorantiam, changing the topic subject, circular logic, appeal to common practice, appeal to popular belief, appeal to wishful thinking, begging the question, confirmation bias, amongst many other fallacies.

You do need to read this PDF I made: Rhetological Fallacies.

And you still have not addressed these questions.

Is it objectively moral to terrorize and torture children into believing in the Bible?

The Obscenity of Christianity and how can William Lane Craig be such an immoral monster?

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
AJ777 - Both numbers and

AJ777 - Both numbers and morality are abstract concepts. If morality is subjective, then why is math not subjective?

Because in mathematics, two rational people given the same postulates, will come to the same conclusion (simply because mathematics is specifically formulated to have this property).

With morality that is not the case. Take perhaps the simplest moral postulate from the bible "thou shalt not kill": rational people disagree all the time on exactly what that means. For example: does it apply to soldiers? People disagree about that.

The difference is in mathematics, the postulates are formulated in such a way to prevent differing interpretations between people. Could morality be formulated in such a way? I'm sure it could be, but in practice is never seems to be.

So I find it rather humorous when we have theists telling us that without god, we are doomed to subjective morality; since even those who believe in god can't seem to produce an objective morality either.

Diotrephes's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

"Take perhaps the simplest moral postulate from the bible "thou shalt not kill": rational people disagree all the time on exactly what that means. For example: does it apply to soldiers? People disagree about that."

The rule about not killing applied to Israelites not killing other Israelites. If they did then special rules applied, like fleeing to sanctuary cities. It was perfectly OK to murder Gentiles, regardless of their age or sex. And when the God character told his cult members to go on a killing spree he got pissed if they showed any mercy.

Remember, the Bible stories are ethnocentric rules for Israelites/Hebrews/Jews. They were not developed for Gentiles.

AJ777's picture
What’s the definition of a

What’s the definition of a rational person? Doesn’t it actually say you shall not murder?
The moral code of the Christian Bible is objective if God exists.

LogicFTW's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777
If a "god" did exist how do you know it is the christian god described in the bible?

Answer you don't know. Just like you do not know if a god exist or not.

So two huge problems: 1. Is there a god? 2. Which god is it? Two unanswerable questions makes it real tricky to base any sort of answer or conclusion on.

The only correct conclusion is: "we do not know."

And when we do not know something, it starts looking real bad when people start going around talking about it as if they do know something, you don't know.

What do we know? That the concept of especially a christian god is extremely unlikely, because the concept is so incredibly flawed in a thousand different ways.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.