Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?

[Stevicus]

Know anyone who's lived past 120 years and proved it wrong?

List of the verified oldest people - Wikipedia

The oldest verified person on record is French woman Jeanne Calment (1875–1997), who lived to the age of 122 years, 164 days.

 

[InChrist]

Again, the idea that God is omniscient and all powerful does not automatically mean that he is also morally righteous. I already stated this in my opening post and gave an example in my last paragraph of that opening post.

The same scriptures that reveal God as omniscient and all powerful also reveal God as holy, good, righteous, merciful, loving, and just.

The Attributes of God
The Attributes of God - Study Resources

 

[InChrist]

If God has superior knowledge He needs to explain Himself. There are a thousand different systems out there, all equally plausible. Moreover, the rules in these systems are anything but intuitive. They appear capricious, counter-productive and often absurd. How can God hold us responsible for adhering to a system when the origins and authority of the system are hidden?

How do you know there are a thousand different equally plausible systems out there? Suppose God, with His superior knowledge, has perfectly legitimate reasons for the system in place and for holding us accountable to what He considers to be adequate information?

 

[Handyman355a]

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment. According to God, I, as a kind and respectful human being, am a corrupt individual worthy of condemnation since I do not believe in this God and do not serve my life to him. This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?

What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be? In which case, if this God is real, then he would not be an all loving, all just, and perfectly righteous being. Therefore, as for those types of Christians who claim that God's moral standard is perfectly righteous, how do you know? The idea that he had his son sacrificed isn't enough to justify his claimed perfect righteousness because anyone can make a sacrifice for you. But that doesn't make them a perfectly righteous person.

You can have any type of God who is claimed to be all knowing and perfect, but he needs to have the perfectly righteous moral standard. For example, if it were claimed that there was a perfect God who created this universe and his moral standard was the absolute worst standard of all such as one set by a psychopath or even Hitler, then just because you believe such a God exists does not justify his moral standard as also being perfect. Therefore, for Christians to believe God exists does not justify his moral standard as being perfectly righteous. His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

God gave instructions to name everything according to it's kind. People chose to abuse this standard and alter original definitions of existence to serve their own interest. These words of self-destruction do not serve existence but the creation of individual desire. God's standard is to have words match existence of words as recorded in the creation story.

 

[Nakosis]

As important, where did it come from ?

Some of it maybe genetic.
A Moral Gene?

I guess we're getting closer to being able to genetically engineer the perfect human.
2015 was the year it became OK to genetically engineer babies

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

The same scriptures that reveal God as omniscient and all powerful also reveal God as holy, good, righteous, merciful, loving, and just.

The Attributes of God
The Attributes of God - Study Resources

But, again, if these scriptures had a God with the absolute worst and most horrible moral atrocities and such a God was claimed by scripture as an all loving, all just, and merciful God, then if you believed these scriptures, then you would be thinking that this would still be an all loving, all just, holy, righteous, and merciful God. The fact that you believe what the scriptures say does not automatically make God an all loving, all just, and merciful God just because scripture says so.

 

[InChrist]

But, again, if these scriptures had a God with the absolute worst and most horrible moral atrocities and such a God was claimed by scripture as an all loving, all just, and merciful God, then if you believed these scriptures, then you would be thinking that this would still be an all loving, all just, holy, righteous, and merciful God. The fact that you believe what the scriptures say does not automatically make God an all loving, all just, and merciful God just because scripture says so.

Possibly what you are saying could be true if God or the scriptures which reveal His character were deceitful as you are trying to imply, but I believe the God calls us to know for ourselves His goodness. I have found enough evidence to satisfy myself that His love and goodness surpasses anything I could ever hope for.

Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Psalm 34:8

 

[Augustus]

I guess we're getting closer to being able to genetically engineer the perfect human.
2015 was the year it became OK to genetically engineer babies

Or possibly closer to the next hubristic **** up in a long and storied human tradition of such hubristic **** ups..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Know anyone who's lived past 120 years and proved it wrong?

Proved what wrong? Your comment about a god limiting our lifespans?

You made a theological claim. It doesn't require disproof.

 

[ronandcarol]

Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?
Not in your wildest dreams
I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment.
Why would you base your judgement on what you hear from someone else....read your Bible.
This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?
Your's is not, His is! He is God, He made the rules. He is also Holy and righteous.
What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?
I have no idea who these guys are but my question again would be why would you allow them to tell you what kind of God He is? Are their words inspired? Read your Bible.
ronandcarol
.

 

[shmogie]

Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?
Not in your wildest dreams
I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment.
Why would you base your judgement on what you hear from someone else....read your Bible.
This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?
Your's is not, His is! He is God, He made the rules. He is also Holy and righteous.
What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?
I have no idea who these guys are but my question again would be why would you allow them to tell you what kind of God He is? Are their words inspired? Read your Bible.
ronandcarol
.

They are new atheists, consumed by rage and anger against religion, they surface read the Bible searching for things they think fits into their preconceived notions. Most old atheists consider them irrational and illogical.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?
Not in your wildest dreams
I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment.
Why would you base your judgement on what you hear from someone else....read your Bible.
This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?
Your's is not, His is! He is God, He made the rules. He is also Holy and righteous.
What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?
I have no idea who these guys are but my question again would be why would you allow them to tell you what kind of God He is? Are their words inspired? Read your Bible.
ronandcarol
.

You have no idea who Dawkins and Dillahunty are, then ask why we would listen to their opinions after giving yours? How about if I make my own judgments?

Incidentally, the Bible is the only source of information upon which to judge this god since it doesn't actually appear or do anything, and its depiction is that of the greatest enemy to mankind in all of history and fiction. Who else comes close to the god that drowned almost all life once, intends to sterilize the earth a second time with fire, as set a master demon loose on the earth and mankind, and has built a torture pit in which most souls will be cast fully conscious and kept conscious just to maximize their suffering to the benefit of nobody but sadists? Who compares to that? Hitler? Darth Vader?

How much worse would things be under the rule of the demon?

I'm sure that you consider all of this blasphemy, but unbelievers don't recognize any such crime. We do, however, think for ourselves and make our judgments independently, including moral judgments about the character of the deity described in the Bible.

You suggested reading it. I've done that. I don't remember a single example of an act of kindness from Jehovah, even our creation, which was a self-serving gesture intended to recruit souls to worship it.

Here's one humanist comparing her moral values to those of this biblical god:

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?
Not in your wildest dreams
I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment.
Why would you base your judgement on what you hear from someone else....read your Bible.
This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?
Your's is not, His is! He is God, He made the rules. He is also Holy and righteous.
What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?
I have no idea who these guys are but my question again would be why would you allow them to tell you what kind of God He is? Are their words inspired? Read your Bible.
ronandcarol
.

Wouldn't you agree that any animal that viciously attacks another animal for not obeying and serving its life to it would be a truly cruel and vicious animal? Furthermore, for this animal to inflict eternal torment upon this disobedient animal, then wouldn't you agree that this would be the most cruel and morally atrocious animal? Especially since this disobedient animal was kind hearted and only wanted to live its own blissful life and just has no interest in adhering to the commands and expectations of this higher dominant animal.

This would be equivalent to cruel slavery. I see no righteousness in this at all. If you agree that this higher dominant animal would be a cruel and an overall morally unrighteous animal, then you would also have to agree that God is morally unrighteous as well. Just because he is God does not entitle him as morally perfect, holy, loving, and righteous. If this were so, then he could have any given sense of morality and it wouldn't matter. As long as he is God, then his sense of morality would always be righteous regardless of what his sense of morality is.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment. According to God, I, as a kind and respectful human being, am a corrupt individual worthy of condemnation since I do not believe in this God and do not serve my life to him. This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?

How do you know what the actions of your decisions really are? You see you are judging an eternal God by the perspective of a mortal being. While some of Gods actions seem brutal what if they are not even real? There are so many flaws in that logic I can not even begin to show the errors. Not many can say they are a better judge of morals than a creator that set the universe in motion.

What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be? In which case, if this God is real, then he would not be an all loving, all just, and perfectly righteous being. Therefore, as for those types of Christians who claim that God's moral standard is perfectly righteous, how do you know? The idea that he had his son sacrificed isn't enough to justify his claimed perfect righteousness because anyone can make a sacrifice for you. But that doesn't make them a perfectly righteous person.

You can have any type of God who is claimed to be all knowing and perfect, but he needs to have the perfectly righteous moral standard. For example, if it were claimed that there was a perfect God who created this universe and his moral standard was the absolute worst standard of all such as one set by a psychopath or even Hitler, then just because you believe such a God exists does not justify his moral standard as also being perfect. Therefore, for Christians to believe God exists does not justify his moral standard as being perfectly righteous. His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

If a God created everything and is eternal and is willing to make you eternal what difference would it make? This existence is not even a flash in the pan of eternity. To question the morals of a being that created everything is beyond irrational and illogical its kind of morally repugnant. I my friend will take my chances with God.

; {>

 

[shmogie]

You have no idea who Dawkins and Dillahunty are, then ask why we would listen to their opinions after giving yours? How about if I make my own judgments?

Incidentally, the Bible is the only source of information upon which to judge this god since it doesn't actually appear or do anything, and its depiction is that of the greatest enemy to mankind in all of history and fiction. Who else comes close to the god that drowned almost all life once, intends to sterilize the earth a second time with fire, as set a master demon loose on the earth and mankind, and has built a torture pit in which most souls will be cast fully conscious and kept conscious just to maximize their suffering to the benefit of nobody but sadists? Who compares to that? Hitler? Darth Vader?

How much worse would things be under the rule of the demon?

I'm sure that you consider all of this blasphemy, but unbelievers don't recognize any such crime. We do, however, think for ourselves and make our judgments independently, including moral judgments about the character of the deity described in the Bible.

You suggested reading it. I've done that. I don't remember a single example of an act of kindness from Jehovah, even our creation, which was a self-serving gesture intended to recruit souls to worship it.

Here's one humanist comparing her moral values to those of this biblical god:

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

what complete and utter twaddle. Your reasoning ability has deteriorated much since I gave op on you. Yep, you are a true disciple of those loopy spokesman for the new atheism, hitchens, dawkins et.al. Like them you use unreasoned ignorance and hyperbole instead of actual logic, exegesis, and historical fact. No, I am not re engaging you, this is simply a total blather alert.

 

[Valjean]

Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?
Not in your wildest dreams

Read your Bible. God's an insecure, jealous psychopath. He delights in killing, genocide and torture.

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment.

Why would you base your judgement on what you hear from someone else....read your Bible.

We do. It's full of injustice, murder and genocide.

This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?

Your's is not, His is! He is God, He made the rules. He is also Holy and righteous.

Where do you get these ideas? If you define righteousness as whatever God dictates then the whole argument becomes circular, moreover, you still have to support your assertion that this God exists in the first place, and that the Bible is His word.

What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?

I have no idea who these guys are but my question again would be why would you allow them to tell you what kind of God He is? Are their words inspired? Read your Bible.

So you admit you're entirely unfamiliar with this subject...
I say to you: Read your Bible -- and don't cherry-pick. God does terrible things in the Bible and contradicts Himself constantly.

They are new atheists, consumed by rage and anger against religion, they surface read the Bible searching for things they think fits into their preconceived notions. Most old atheists consider them irrational and illogical.

I think you're projecting, Shmogie. It's you Christian reactionaries who are consumed with rage and anger. It's you who cherry pick the Bible.
We atheists generally know more about the Bible, and about religion in general, than your average Christian

How do you know what the actions of your decisions really are? You see you are judging an eternal God by the perspective of a mortal being. While some of Gods actions seem brutal what if they are not even real? There are so many flaws in that logic I can not even begin to show the errors. Not many can say they are a better judge of morals than a creator that set the universe in motion.

And you, Dr Pangloss, are excusing obvious injustices with banal platitudes, claiming it's all for the best, that we're not competent to judge, and that everything happens for a good reason.

If God want's us to follow particular rules, why doesn't He make their purpose clear? Why doesn't He make Himself clear? He's given us no evidence that He even exists.
For that matter, why does He write so many contradictory, even self-contradictory, rulebooks? How is one to choose, when the rules are beyond our understanding, as you claim?

If a God created everything and is eternal and is willing to make you eternal what difference would it make? This existence is not even a flash in the pan of eternity. To question the morals of a being that created everything is beyond irrational and illogical its kind of morally repugnant. I my friend will take my chances with God.

Pascal's wager, eh? Now you've got me convinced...

 

[Segev Moran]

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment. According to God, I, as a kind and respectful human being, am a corrupt individual worthy of condemnation since I do not believe in this God and do not serve my life to him. This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?

What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be? In which case, if this God is real, then he would not be an all loving, all just, and perfectly righteous being. Therefore, as for those types of Christians who claim that God's moral standard is perfectly righteous, how do you know? The idea that he had his son sacrificed isn't enough to justify his claimed perfect righteousness because anyone can make a sacrifice for you. But that doesn't make them a perfectly righteous person.

You can have any type of God who is claimed to be all knowing and perfect, but he needs to have the perfectly righteous moral standard. For example, if it were claimed that there was a perfect God who created this universe and his moral standard was the absolute worst standard of all such as one set by a psychopath or even Hitler, then just because you believe such a God exists does not justify his moral standard as also being perfect. Therefore, for Christians to believe God exists does not justify his moral standard as being perfectly righteous. His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

Well...

I Would say human morals are evolving to make all humans better regardless of anything they choose to believe.
Than I would say that the alleged God's morals evolve to make all humans better only if they "choose" to believe a specific religion.

Which would you choose?

 

[Valjean]

I'd say the 'alleged God's morals' derive from a hodgepodge of ancient tribal traditions, mythologies and taboos. Perhaps many were originally utilitarian, in context. Others, I suspect, derive from conservatives reacting to novelty or ickyness, as is their wont.

 

[Segev Moran]

Interesting. Then where do their morals come from

Where does moral come from?

These are the main two suggested ideas:

1. It is a "turnkey" solution created by a supreme being that on its own, already possesses the moral attribute. thus, moral can only be created by the entity who has it
already (so in a way, it didn't really create it? no?)

2. It is a yet to be fully understood mechanism, that during billions of year evolved by genetic information passed from generations to generation.
It is an outcome of humans being able to describe things they experience into their language.
For example, In past generations, it was't considered immoral to own a slave and abuse him/her.
Over the years, while countless lives were lost, and battles fought, only then slavery was considered immoral.

, and what makes their morals moral ?

What do you mean?
Nothing!
Moral is just a word describing a social concept.
It will be like asking what makes democracy a democracy.

 

[shmogie]

Where does moral come from?

These are the main two suggested ideas:

1. It is a "turnkey" solution created by a supreme being that on its own, already possesses the moral attribute. thus, moral can only be created by the entity who has it
already (so in a way, it didn't really create it? no?)

2. It is a yet to be fully understood mechanism, that during billions of year evolved by genetic information passed from generations to generation.
It is an outcome of humans being able to describe things they experience into their language.
For example, In past generations, it was't considered immoral to own a slave and abuse him/her.
Over the years, while countless lives were lost, and battles fought, only then slavery was considered immoral.

What do you mean?
Nothing!
Moral is just a word describing a social concept.
It will be like asking what makes democracy a democracy.

You seem to support dawkins in that there is no such thing as objective morality, just genetic drives for survival. Then why do you use the term moral ? That is a term that makes a judgement about good and bad, but those are also terms you don't believe in. Using the term moral once again, you say it can only be created by the entity who has it. You will have to explain that comment a little more, it doesn't make any sense. I don't own the moon, but I can describe it and know what it is.