The word of god

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Atheist Jogger's picture
The word of god

The bible is supposed to be the word of god. Every time scientists make a discovery that contradicts the bible, theists rush to rationalise their god as being responsible for this discovery.

Before we knew about the earth revolving around the sun and the sun being a tiny cog in a tiny galaxy theists were quite happy to tell us that god put us in the centre of the universe. Then when they realised they were wrong, they used another excuse. Some theists now accept evolution, and rationalie it by saying god created consciousness or some other point. Then when science proves they are wrong they go onto a different issue

As scientists get more and more knowledge of the big bang some theists are saying "someone had to create something from nothing". They always seem to be behind science!

Back to the topic. The bible is the supposedly word of god. I'd be a lot more inclined to accept some of its statements if the bible stated:

"In the beginning god created the laws of physics, and it was good.
And the laws of physics caused a big bang.
And the big bang caused inflation,
Matter and anti-matter,
Dark matter, particles and DNA.
And one particle which caused matter to attract to other matter
And that particle had the effect of causing gravity
Because ............

I can't go on because I don't understand enough about quantum physics, but if the bible was real it would have given us ALL the information because god would have known about it all, including E = MC2 and all the other things that have been discovered and are still going to be discovered.

However the bible does not start with the laws of physics and many scientists agree that we don't need a god to give us the laws of physics in the first place. There are still lots of things that we don't know, but scientists are discovering it all the time, so a good bible would have given us all the answers. Instead of Leviticus giving rules around eating pork and seafood and how to wash, it should have given us the laws of physics and other laws we have yet to discover and understand.

It's almost as if the bible was written by a human who knew very little so had to justify what they knew at the time. Lol. If there is a word of god, it isn't the bible.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
Come on... Jesus gave us

Come on... Jesus gave us the Satan theory of disease and mental health and saved millions of people from horrible deaths.

Sheldon's picture
Religious apologists often

Religious apologists often try to rationalise their defence of the bible being the "word" of God, by rationalizing it as cryptic allegory and metaphor. The idea an omniscient omnipotent deity would communicate in such a way is equally absurd to me. Especially if theists simultaneously claim it wants me to believe it exists and worship it, but doesn't want to interfere with my "free will". Why communicate at all one wonders? Also why are there revelations and answered prayers if it doesn't want to interfere with free will?

To cut To the chase then, can any apologists show anything in the bible that can be objectively demonstrated as impossible for a mere human to write or create?

Perhaps they could list their top ten in decending order? If that's not too biblical...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"It's almost as if the bible

"It's almost as if the bible was written by a human who knew very little so had to justify what they knew at the time."

I get an additional impression, that the bible was written FOR humans who knew very little. Had Scripture begun the way you described, with an exposition of physics, nobody except for highly educated people born in western countries, in the past fifty years of human history would have understood it. Evidenced by the fact that you yourself left the verse unfinished because, you "can't go on because I don't understand enough about quantum physics". Scripture, if it were to have the effect it has had on human history, needs to be basic enough for a fisherman like Peter to understand, but profound enough for scientists like Newton to dissect.

Clearly, it accomplished that goal, otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining about it's relevance.

You view the malleability of Scripture as weakness. I view it as genius. Knowledge doesn't stop. All our modern theories and truths will eventually become outdated and replaced. All our models of reality will be overturned. If God exists, He probably views our sciences as the work of children playing around with an anthill. So, what scientific truth should God have revealed, to have satisfied you? If he revealed the theory of relativity, nobody before Einstein would have understood it. Yes, possibly everyone alive today would have believed in God, but then a hundred years from now, when a new theory overturns relativity, now everyone will be atheist. Scripture needs to transcend all that, it needs to make sense to someone living in a geocentric society a thousand years ago, and make sense to someone living in a heliocentric society today, and that it what it has done successfully.

As someone who studies how minds work, I find the recipe of Scripture the best solution. Take whatever information God knows, and filter it through the brains of regular people like Moses and Paul. That way you can be sure it can be understood by everyone. It has to address things very fundamental to all humans, so that it can adapt to every society and culture that humans have created.

I think it was Washoe the chimp which was taught sign language by people after many years. But it was her son, who was taught that information by Washoe, which learned it the best. Information from more intelligent humans, filtered through the brain of Washoe, created the most efficient result in her offspring.

Another example are the four gospels. Atheists seem to love gravitating here and finding contradictions between them: Matthew says it was one blind person, but John says it was two, etc. But I think anyone who has studied psychology will recognize that this is precisely what we have been taught to expect when dealing with people's memory of an event. Obviously, people who think Scripture is supposed to be verbatim the word of God will have issues with that. But anyone who has read the bible knows that's not what it's supposed to be. Only the Ten Commandments were written by God, everything else is the testimony of men, hence the word testaments.

Sheldon's picture
"Obviously, people who think

"Obviously, people who think Scripture is supposed to be verbatim the word of God will have issues with that. But anyone who has read the bible knows that's not what it's supposed to be."

Well that would exclude 24% of American according to a Gallup poll.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-li...

Though admittedly education and the fact the US has people fighting to preserve it's secular constitution are eroding this number slowly.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

"Knowledge doesn't stop. All our modern theories and truths will eventually become outdated and replaced. All our models of reality will be overturned. - Mr. Breezy"

Really? Will we ever conclude that the sun is not some 92 million miles away? The fact that Newtonian physics was replaced by Einstein's relativity does not mean that it was wildly wrong. Relativity is a refinement of Newtonian physics which noticeably deviates from it in high speed and high gravity situations. The fact that some of our scientific ideas will become obsolete does not mean that they are of no value today! We are close to the truth and we get a little closer still.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

"Only the Ten Commandments were written by God, everything else is the testimony of men, hence the word testaments. - Mr. Breezy"

Funny, that God forgot to issue a commandment forbidding slavery, one of the great evils of all time! As to the rest of the bible, being merely the testimony of men, does it also contain the errors of men? As a psychology student you must surely understand how unreliable the testimony of witnesses are.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

@ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

The bible wasn't just incomplete and vague (which you are defending), in many aspects it was just wrong.

For example, according to the bible the earth was at the center of the universe, and the heavens were fixed and unchanging. It should have laid out a general description of an Earth circling the sun.

Because of errors like this IMO it is more logical to reach the conclusion the bible was derived from tales of barbaric nomadic tribesmen who knew very little. Which they were, at that time.

Additionally, a good part of the bible was not vague, it had very specific instructions and guides, with no interpretation.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I wouldn't say the bible is

I wouldn't say the bible is vague or incomplete; but it places heavy importance around the single subject of salvation, to the exclusion of almost everything else. To try to uncover the mysteries of the universe through it's pages essentially misses the point; such mysteries are presumably left for us to discover on our own.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

@ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

No era was as strict in the following of the bible as in the dark ages. During that sad and cruel era in human history, little advances in anything happened. Only when academics and others started to stray outside of the bible (at great risk from the church) did the Europeans advance in exploration and the sciences.

If the church had managed to maintain their grip, we would still be wallowing in ignorance and filth, because the bible stifles any progress. We were not left to discover anything when the bible held power over all.

IMO the bible placed more emphasis on strictly following the instructions contained within the bible than a path to "salvation".

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
It's funny, then, that the

It's funny, then, that the Dark Ages also correlate with the hiding of the Bible. Scripture, if ever read to people during those days, was done so in Latin which only the scholars understood. Salvation was to be gotten through priests and popes, because the masses were too ignorant to get it directly.

How interesting too, that the Dark Ages began to end around the time of the Protestant Revolution. A time when you have Luther, Tyndale, and a hundred other people translating Scripture into all the languages of Europe. A time when the Guttenberg Press was invented, and the bible began to be widely and quickly printed, till today there is a surplus of bibles. Not to mention the internet which has made it freely accessible to everyone on earth (except for China perhaps not sure, maybe even North Korea and middle east, hmm)

If we're going by people's accessibility of the Bible, what you call the Dark Ages should have been bliss, and today's society should have been lost in Darkness. Modern America should have been one of the most scientifically behind countries on earth, and countries that ban the bible far superior.

IMO

David Killens's picture
Yes, the Roman Catholic

Yes, the Roman Catholic church did most of it's business in Latin, in order to maintain control of the masses. And it was the efforts of academics and others that broke that chain of servitude. It was nothing but power and control. The church always wanted to maintain control and use Latin. It was not that just the scholars "understood" the bible, they and priests were the only ones who could read Latin.

You have so little faith in the abilities and potential of people. We are capable of great things and comprehending amazing things. We do not need to be spoon fed knowledge because we have some kind of limitation.

It was not people's limitations that kept us back during the dark ages, it was religion.

And you really need to get out more. China if officially an atheist state, but very tolerant of religion. They have actually separated church from state, something I commend the people of China for doing. Yes, there are bibles in China, lots and lots of them.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"It was not people's

"It was not people's limitations that kept us back during the dark ages, it was religion."

I have no disagreements with that. I'm Protestant, so obviously I view the Catholic Church in those days as the biggest problem in Christianity. It even murdered and persecuted such protestants, and those who attempted to translate the Bible. Even Jesus Himself made it clear that the biggest issue in his day was the religious establishment. Thus why He turned to fishermen rather than to the priests.

Sheldon's picture
The primary countries

The primary countries involved in starting WWI were all bible reading christian countries. Nazis Germany was overwhelmingly christian, with access to the bible in German for anyone who wanted it. The inquisition, the crusades, the 30 year war, the Salem witch trials, the Ku Klux klan, the north American slave trade, the genocide in Bosnia and Croatia, and in Rwanda and on and on it goes occurring in countries that were either exclusively christian with access to the bible, or with large christian populations that enthusiastically took part in those barbaric atrocities, often citing scripture as their motive and excuse, never suffer a witch to live, slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones, etc etc... So you'll forgive me if I find your claim that access to the bible would have improved the dark ages extremely dubious, as the evidence doesn't support your assertion.

You're also making an unfair comparison at the end, try comparing America to other thriving post industrialised democracies that are overtly secular in both government and population. Secularism doesn't seem to be hampering Japan, or Norway or Sweden for example. Even among christians the USA has a violent and bloody history, and those bible reading Christian settlers from all over Europe committed genocide on the indigenous population of America, but then they were heathens, so your deity in your bible set a fairly unequivocal precedent for such barbarity in genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Sheldon's picture
" To try to uncover the

" To try to uncover the mysteries of the universe through it's pages essentially misses the point; such mysteries are presumably left for us to discover on our own."

You're missing the point, why did it (the bible) make claims about that very topic that are demonstrably wrong? 1) Human fallibility explains it neatly, but this means either it is entirely man made, or 2) humans have introduced errancy into it, which on its own would present a problem as there would be no way of knowing which parts were human errancy and which not. It also present for me a larger problem of why a deity would allow it's message to be corrupted in a such a way given the claimed stakes are so high it seems unbelievable callous.

The first options seems to satisfy Occam's razor, whilst fitting all the evidence.

Diotrephes's picture
David Killens,

David Killens,

"The bible wasn't just incomplete and vague (which you are defending), in many aspects it was just wrong."

The Bible does have a lot of BS in it but the purpose of the BS is to help sell the idea that people must always be loyal to the guy in charge regardless of personal hardship even to death or else he will stomp the crap out of them. That's basically what it's all about.

Cognostic's picture
The bible gave us the air

The bible gave us the air foil and the Wright Brothers used that to lead the world into flight. Everything is in the bible/

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy
"Another example are the four gospels. Atheists seem to love gravitating here and finding contradictions between them: Matthew says it was one blind person, but John says it was two, etc. But I think anyone who has studied psychology will recognize that this is precisely what we have been taught to expect when dealing with people's memory of an event."

Also exactly what we expect when copyists are looking at the same account as in "mark" and making errors and then also copying the exact same mistakes that occur in the original story. John, nearly every bible scholar now accepts that the synoptic gospels were ALL copied from a hellenic version of 'mark', and jewish errors corrected in the Jewish (matthew) version which originally dd not contain the first two chapters. John was not written down ( and it is generally accepted that it is the work of at least two or more authors) until the first two decades of the 2nd Century CE.

As an 'expert' psychologist which is more likely? That the errors ad contradictions in the gospels are by eye witness error when not written down by foreign speaking third parties until at least 40 years after the alleged events or copyist errors from a single written story circulated years after the events and in a foreign language? Bear in mind the 'gospels' did not exist as documents until the early 2nd Century and only fragments now survive.

Let's look at the errors and contradictions in Paul. ( lets not even go to the glaring omission by 'paul' of any reference to a "virgin" birth") It again is generally accepted that the last three epistles (Titus and Corinthians 3&4) are forgeries and much later to accommodate Roman mores. That only the first three epistles can be confidently attributed to the same author and we have no evidence as to who that was. In addition when you compare the epistles to Acts there is such an estrangement between the two accounts of 'paul" that they may as well have been separate people, which many scholars now are arguing as fact.

You are well out of your comfort zone here Breezy. Stick to your first year notes, and keep your head down in your pew, you will be much more comfortable.

Kataclismic's picture
Indeed. And it seems like if

Indeed. And it seems like if this god were all-knowing he could have told the people to just boil their water rather than having to turn it into wine. It still fascinates me, one of the biggest problems in our society today is alcohol abuse and addiction, yet they'll claim some god turns water into this toxic soup because it's healthier for you than stagnant water after the processing kills all the microbes.

I still don't know how to do those types of mental gymnastics.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Kataclismic - [god] could

Kataclismic - [god] could have told the people to just boil their water

Right, something like:

Many illnesses are caused by very tiny animals that get into your body through cuts, food, water, and air. You can help prevent this by killing these animals with fire. Boil water before putting it into your body.

That simple statement would have prevented millions of untimely deaths; and set the bible up as containing arguable the most useful medical advise of all time. What do we get instead? A recipe of how to cure diseases by sprinkling bird blood on people, and other non-sense. Yet they want us to believe that it was divinely inspired (or the actual word of god).

Which leads us to the conclusion that the bible is just a collection of conventional wisdom of the time, or that god knows less about germs than any member of this forum.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
That's funny, because if

That's funny, because if there's one thing religions are known for are their excessive preoccupation with cleanliness, washing, and purity. My Abnormal Psychology textbook even uses it to illustrate the difficulty of diagnosing maladaptive behavior. Is a man that is washing himself ritualistically throughout the day religious, or suffering from OCD? Context matters.

I wouldn't even doubt it if there's an evolutionary paper out there attributing part of our species survival and success to ritualistic things like washings, avoidance of things like blood and dead animals, prohibitions against promiscuous behavior, etc. Read Leviticus, they definitely washed more than us today.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

What does any of this have to do with God's failure to lay out modern hygiene, including instructions for making and using soap? What's with this business of sprinkling bird's blood about? Once again you are dodging the real issues.

Kataclismic's picture
No matter how clean you are,

No matter how clean you are, it doesn't kill the bacteria in your water if you don't know it's there.

If God doesn't know it's there then he's not much of a god at all.

Here, let me make an addictive drink that will destroy your liver because you don't know about bacteria. That's what gods are good for is it?

Great hope's picture
Zgg

Zgg
It's really great what some people have done throughout history to help others. It's amazing the world we live in today because of science and technology. God or no God? It still is miracle after miracle of hard working people who have done the impossible for the advancement of human kind. That is clearly seen and never debated. But, it begs the question. If there is no Creator? Then when they die, they get the same thing that a human trafficking syndicate gets? Do atheists believe in something other than nothing after death? I'm genuinely asking. Is that all atheist believe in, after death is just nothingness? If so? Then it truely is survial of the fittest and dog eat dog. Literally no reason for morality. There is no debate. It only is I'm going to get mine. I don't know if atheists have played the tape all the way through on the authority for why they believe what they believe? For you see, the evil, the pure evil that exists in this world. The ones responsible for hurting and oppressing people. Killing and murdering. The elite that do unspeakable evil in the shade of darkness. Sometimes in the name of god. The list is endless. Why are your efforts not in combating that? People that claim Atheism only don't want there to be a Creator. Real Atheism doesn't even care about any of that. Their time is spent on other things. They don't need to claim Atheism. Their life directly expersses that and because the rest of the world doesn't opperate like them. What they do must be done in the shadows of darkness. Simple physics tells us that when light shines in the darkness must cease. It's not the other way around. Darkness can never overcome light. Only when the light is not, is when the darkness can be. So I'm genuinely asking another question because of my ignorance for what atheists believe. Why is Christianity attacked more than the occultism, Satanism, secret societies, the rich and the elite, even more than religion? Belief and Hope in The Creator of this life and what all this purpose ends up becoming. Is completely different from religion. So I guess my question is, do some of the greatest people that ever lived get the same thing as hitler? And is there a source of information that claims no afterlife? Or is that strictly an emotional response?

David Killens's picture
@ Great Hope

@ Great Hope

"But, it begs the question. If there is no Creator? Then when they die, they get the same thing that a human trafficking syndicate gets? Do atheists believe in something other than nothing after death? I'm genuinely asking."

As an atheist my understanding is that when I die, it's all over. There is no reward, there is no punishment after life. Just death, the great void. My reward is the life I live, this life.

As an atheist I live by the mantra of well being and understand the simple fact that as a social species, we humans must learn to get along. My moral conduct is determined by the circumstances. For example, I drove my neighbor to a store last week to assist him in purchasing a bicycle for his daughter. I did not do it for money, I did it for his daughter's sake. There is no passage in the bible that states "Thou shall assist in children getting bicycles". So a person living their life and living under a literal dictate from the bible is not obligated to perform such an act of charity. It is a shame you can not do such an act from the heart while this atheist does.

As stated my morality is not dictated by any holy text or written and inflexible instructions. Each decision based on morality is unique, there is not fixed set of rules. For example, your bible states very clearly "Thou shall not kill". But if some undesirable was holding a knife to my mother's throat, I would not hesitate in making a nice hole in his forehead and saving my mother.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So I'm genuinely asking another question because of my ignorance for what atheists believe. Why is Christianity attacked more than the occultism, Satanism, secret societies, the rich and the elite, even more than religion?"

You are entitled to your beliefs, I will not interfere only as long as you keep it private. But when you allow your religion to influence laws and have a direct on other people, then I take up arms. Religion is exclusive, it tries to (for example) keep gays from getting married. As long as they are not hurting anyone, I am very comfortable with that. But when religion interferes and attempt to treat them as second hand citizens just because of who they are, I take offense.

I attack any religion that has such despicable practices. But for the simple fact I live in a mainly Christian location and they do the most harm, they are the ones I criticize the most.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And is there a source of information that claims no afterlife? Or is that strictly an emotional response?"

There is zero proof of any afterlife. My position is not an emotional response but knowing fairy tales from reality. I conduct myself in a rational and sane manner. Belief in an afterlife is not based on anything but lies, propaganda, and "faith". And faith is not a pathway to truth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yea, in a black hole light can not leave. Light does not win every battle. Please get your facts correct and do not wander off into "light wins all" crap.

Tin-Man's picture
@Great Hope

@Great Hope

Howdy. Welcome to the AR. Nice of you to stop by. Most of what you asked I have addressed multiple times over many other threads on this site, but I suppose they are worth repeating. Plus, it will be much easier than trying to direct you to every post I have made related to your questions. LOL
_____________________________________________________________________________________

First, re: " If there is no Creator? Then when they die, they get the same thing that a human trafficking syndicate gets?"

Yep. Pretty much sums it up. Rather simple. On the other hand, however, let's take a look at how one might fare when we throw your average Christian religion into the mix. (And I say "average" because of all the thousands of different Christian sect/denominations out there, each with its own beliefs in regards to the bible.) According to Christianity in the way I was raised (Baptist), it does not matter in the least bit how incredibly vile or horrible a person you might be, because God/Jesus will forgive you no matter what you ever do wrong. All you have to do is make a sincere show of repentance and ask for forgiveness before you die, and - Presto! - up to heaven you go! Yay! At the same time, it does not matter in the least bit how incredibly kind or honest or helpful you are to other people in your life, because God/Jesus will send your heathen ass straight to hell (Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200.) if you do not believe in them or worship them. Therefore, in your scenario, that entire trafficking syndicate could potentially get a free pass through the Pearly Gates, while the honest, hard-working, charitable individual who never did wrong in his/her life would get sent to the Eternal Barbeque with Satan. So, yeah, I personally believe the "equal opportunity nothingness" death for everybody is considerably more "fair."
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: "...(if) after death is just nothingness? If so? Then it truely is survial of the fittest and dog eat dog. Literally no reason for morality."

The fact that there is nothingness after death is precisely the reason why I try to make the absolute most of the time I have on this world NOW. This is it. This is the only shot I have. I can either throw it away and waste it on being an ass and cheating people and being a cruel monster, or I can do as most good as I am able, treat people kindly, help others when I can, and live a life of love and happiness. Well, oooooo-kaaaay... I admit I can be quite an incredible ass sometimes. In all fairness, though, it is either in fun/jest, or it is when somebody crosses a personal boundary they shouldn't have crossed. Otherwise, I like being happy and having fun. More importantly, I like making others happy and seeing others having fun. It is one of the great joys of life seeing people laugh.

Here is something for you to consider when you mention how atheists cannot have morals. You are on an atheist site. You are having a discussion with atheists. The atheists you say have no morals are responding to you in a civil and courteous manner and sharing their personal views with you. Those personal views are full of positive and charitable and helpful attitudes towards life and society as a whole. We are not rampaging and raiding and pillaging our neighbors' homes nor our communities. We are living our lives as peacefully as allowed and trying to make positive contributions wherever and whenever possible. So, how exactly do you deduce we cannot have any good moral values? I DO NOT NEED a god to tell me how to be a good person. I do good simply for the sake of doing good because it is the right thing to do. I do not do it for some promise of an imaginary "paradise" after I die. In other words, I do not require the promise of heaven, nor the threat of hell, to do good - and avoid doing bad - in my life. Very simple.
_________________________________________________________________________________________-

Re: "So I guess my question is, do some of the greatest people that ever lived get the same thing as hitler?"

So, I'm curious. What exactly did Hitler get? From all records and indicators, Hitler was a rather devout Catholic, if my understanding is correct. Are you omniscient like your god? Do you know what decision your god made about Hitler when Hitler died? If not, then you have absolutely ZERO clue about what happened to Hitler after he died. However, if you happen to have some inside track on the decisions your god has made over the centuries, then I am sure everybody here would be fascinated to hear what you know. Oh, but to answer your question, though: YES, everybody gets the same thing Hitler got. Dead is dead. There is nobody in the grave who is more dead or less dead than anybody else in a grave. (Or in a shallow ditch, depending on the circumstances.)

Sheldon's picture
This is the same woeful tired

This is the same woeful tired old cliche religious apologetists find compelling. Life's not fair = deity and magic.

How you feel about there being no afterlife is entirely moot as to whether there is one. There is no reason to believe I will experience anything after my brain dies, just as before it existed. Whining about how shitty the world can be won't change this.

What's more throughout much of human history theists have lied to the masses with the promise of a fictional afterlife precisely to keep them placid in accepting living miserably in this one.

I find the idea that I will survive the death of my brain in any meaningful way absurd, and I'm sorry if people have a hard time accepting the truth, but that doesn't evidence a fictional afterlife. In fact we might all be more inclined to value the one life we do have, for ourselves and for others when we accept it is finite and unique.

Shitty people do shitty things, and all the evidence shows theists are no more moral than atheists. In fact if a person needs the sacharrine promise of heaven or the eternal punishment of hell in order to see things like rape and murder as wrong then they're a shitty human being.

It's enough for me to see how such acts cause terrible suffering to know they're morally unconscionable.

Worst of all is the idea that a decent person who has done only good their entire life might be punished forever for failing to guess that the right version of the right deity exists. Whilst Hitler or Stalin could live forever in a state of bliss after one timely but genuine act of contrition, what the fuck is just or moral about that fictional nonsense? It's an obscenely immoral idea anyway.

David Killens's picture
The really sick part Sheldon,

The really sick part Sheldon, is that Anne Frank, a Jew, may be in hell and Hitler in heaven under these biblical "rules".

I do not usually use strong language, but that is as fucked up as anything could be.

JoC's picture
That is f**cked up. Curious

That is f**cked up. Curious though, where are these Biblical rules that say anne frank might go to Hell and Hitler, heaven?

Sheldon's picture
Are you saying some people

Are you saying some people can't be saved? Anne Frank was Jewish, so that's a bizarre question for a catholic to ask.

JoC's picture
That’s actually not the

That’s actually not the position the Catholic Church holds. And it’s never held that view. So it’s actually a very sensible question for a Catholic to ask.

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.