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

[shmogie]

Please excuse the ragged typing, I have MS, and some days the tremors aren't bad and some days they are. Ineed to proof read better

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, Dawkins is a dangerous enemy that must be viciously exposed. Sigh, please tell me if I said dawkins was dangerous, before you look, I didn't. So classic of liberals, and you have apparently learned well, take a statement, substitute inflammatory words and say they are part of what was said, then say "you said this". Dawkins is about as dangerous as a twinkie.
Rudolph may be a Christian now, but he wasn't when he did these things You can' be a bunny if your behavior is that of a pig.

The abortion clinics are a moral dilemma. They are responsible for an American genocide that has slaughtered millions of human beings. I would like to see them all destroyed, but of course, my faith, demands I respect the law and not harm others property or well being, so we will use the law to end these brutal atrocities

 

[ChristineM]

I think not. Dawkins rages in ignorance, he makes aggressive untruthful statements about things he has totally mis represented. Even if your statement were true re the "irritating methods religonists have been using for centuries" ( you aren't) is that an excuse for ignorant statements, wrong conclusions, and employing a method of sarcasm, unrestrained words, and hyperbole that is so ridiculous it becomes funny and revolting at the same time. He rages at windmills that he has convinced himself and many others to be dangerous enemies hat must be viciously exposed. when all the time they are just windmills

Sounds a bit like you are the one doing the raging here. You may not like Dawkins, that is a personal choice, probably made because of his stance on religion, evolution which at the least questions biblical rhetoric, at most, destroys it with fact and logic.

 

[shmogie]

Sounds a bit like you are the one doing the raging here. You may not like Dawkins, that is a personal choice, probably made because of his stance on religion, evolution which at the least questions biblical rhetoric, at most, destroys it with fact and logic.

Raging ? Because I post facts ? There are many atheist moralists who have the same criticism. Like him ? I don't even know him. Of all the Atheists Dawkins and his twin, Christopher Hitchens are two of the easiest to refute, Just quoting other prominent atheists about their their views of the Hitchkins goes a long way

 

[ChristineM]

Raging ? Because I post facts ? There are many atheist moralists who have the same criticism. Like him ? I don't even know him. Of all the Atheists Dawkins and his twin, Christopher Hitchens are two of the easiest to refute, Just quoting other prominent atheists about their their views of the Hitchkins goes a long way

Actually neither are easy to refute which is why you are ranting nonsense. As for dislike, you don't need a personal invite to dislike someone, it does however show a lack of moral fibre to disrespect someone so venomously when you, as you say, don't even know him. And then you jump straight into hyperbole hate mode by claiming hitchins is twin. And i thoughtful the religious were supposed to respect family, not mock and lie about it

You did claim you would show Dawkins to be ignorant, as yet i have not seen any indication that you intend to fulfill that claim.

Id really like to know how you can justify an Oxford educated emeritus professor, fellow of the royal society with doctorates and honorary doctorates as ignorant

 

[InquiringMind]

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.

You are absolutely right. Our moral standards can be adjusted "on the fly" depending on the immediate circumstances. The standards of God have been set in stone so to speak thousands of years ago. And typically, you break His laws and you go to hell. We have the judicial system that can put us on trial as a test by our peers whether we acted according to the moral standards of the day. It might not go well for us in this case but at least we have a chance to be exonerated. This system is adjustable to the standards of our present day. This is so superior to that of being tried by a law that was written 100s of years ago. And if we believe in the "old testament" God, almost any infraction gets you death. I don't think any of us should be judged that way.

 

[leibowde84]

What principles and regulations ?

It's pretty obvious. Moral principles and regulations. Or "morality" in general.

 

[leibowde84]

Because nobody is happy unless they are the top dog.

This is certainly not true. Most people that are happy are not the "top dog".

 

[shmogie]

Actually neither are easy to refute which is why you are ranting nonsense. As for dislike, you don't need a personal invite to dislike someone, it does however show a lack of moral fibre to disrespect someone so venomously when you, as you say, don't even know him. And then you jump straight into hyperbole hate mode by claiming hitchins is twin. And i thoughtful the religious were supposed to respect family, not mock and lie about it

You did claim you would show Dawkins to be ignorant, as yet i have not seen any indication that you intend to fulfill that claim.

Id really like to know how you can justify an Oxford educated emeritus professor, fellow of the royal society with doctorates and honorary doctorates as ignorant

I will show Dawkins as ignorant, watch for it. Ignorance simply means uninformed. He makes rash and factually incorrect statements about the Bible all the time, either he hasn't read it and is listening to other peoples view;'s, or he has read it and forgotten what he read, or he purposely makes incorrect statements to sway people to his view.

Don't be so impressed with degrees, I have a couple myself. In my work I interacted with academics at a very prominent California university. I discovered they put their pants on just like me, and even though they had three PhD's in different disciplines, they could be dolts, dullards and ignorant just like everyone else.

 

[shmogie]

You are absolutely right. Our moral standards can be adjusted "on the fly" depending on the immediate circumstances. The standards of God have been set in stone so to speak thousands of years ago. And typically, you break His laws and you go to hell. We have the judicial system that can put us on trial as a test by our peers whether we acted according to the moral standards of the day. It might not go well for us in this case but at least we have a chance to be exonerated. This system is adjustable to the standards of our present day. This is so superior to that of being tried by a law that was written 100s of years ago. And if we believe in the "old testament" God, almost any infraction gets you death. I don't think any of us should be judged that way.

Nope. You sin ( break Christ's law) as well as many laws in the OT that applied during that dispensation, you have every opportunity to to repent and be forgiven. I suggest you go to Exodus and Leviticus and count the number of offenses where death is the only punishment. Then I suggest you count the number where death is one of the possible punishments. People lump these two together, thus resulting in your statement "almost any infraction gets you death" the truth is few get you death, and many might get you death.

 

[ChristineM]

I will show Dawkins as ignorant, watch for it. Ignorance simply means uninformed. He makes rash and factually incorrect statements about the Bible all the time, either he hasn't read it and is listening to other peoples view;'s, or he has read it and forgotten what he read, or he purposely makes incorrect statements to sway people to his view.

Don't be so impressed with degrees, I have a couple myself. In my work I interacted with academics at a very prominent California university. I discovered they put their pants on just like me, and even though they had three PhD's in different disciplines, they could be dolts, dullards and ignorant just like everyone else.

Actually your opinion is worth squat, his opinion about the bible tend to be accurate and based on the content of the Bible, i counter your claim by saying i don't believe you have read it or you or you wouldn't be making ignorant claims like that without providing evidence to back you up

Yes and i have 5 including 2 masters, you're point is what? Are you calling me ignorant as you appear to be calling yourself?

 

[Segev Moran]

You are absolutely right.

About which part?

Our moral standards can be adjusted "on the fly" depending on the immediate circumstances.

Agreed. though i would suggest moral standards are divided to several different "types of moral".
The main ones being Personal Moral and Collective Moral.
You are right that personal moral standards can be adjusted "on the fly".
It is best demonstrated when your own survival is at stake.
Social or Collective morals, take very long to change. So long, that even now days, there are people practicing "old school" law systems without being considered "criminals".

The standards of God have been set in stone so to speak thousands of years ago.

Assuming Hebrew God based on the commandments part?

And typically, you break His laws and you go to hell.

Which is a great way to force a will, otherwise, people might believe they have free will.

We have the judicial system that can put us on trial as a test by our peers whether we acted according to the moral standards of the day.

The judicial system doesn't judge moral.
Our court of law judges whether or not a person is guilty in performing an act that was forbidden based on the what we call Law.
Someone can perform something very immoral and not commit any crime.
Just the same, someone can perform a very moral act, but be accused of a crime.

It might not go well for us in this case but at least we have a chance to be exonerated.

Indeed. When you can not prove the existence of an event, the claim would be dismissed.
there are many problems with our system, and some of those problems are the power of religion, money, bureaucracy and alike.

This system is adjustable to the standards of our present day.

With many limitations, but yes.

This is so superior to that of being tried by a law that was written 100s of years ago.

Agreed.

And if we believe in the "old testament" God,

Indeed if...

almost any infraction gets you death. I don't think any of us should be judged that way.

Absolutely agree.

 

[shmogie]

Actually your opinion is worth squat, his opinion about the bible tend to be accurate and based on the content of the Bible, i counter your claim by saying i don't believe you have read it or you or you wouldn't be making ignorant claims like that without providing evidence to back you up

Yes and i have 5 including 2 masters, you're point is what? Are you calling me ignorant as you appear to be calling yourself?

Neither. I am saying degree's don't equate to reason and wisdom and advanced degrees , and many degrees don't equate to much wisdom or reason. Dear lady, (my assumption) I have tremors from MS and am not a typist. typing a response like this takes me much longer than most others. Apparently my observations are popular, as they draw quite a few responses. Responding to those takes time. I have the dawkins/hitchens/hitchkins material I need, it's just going to take a little time to type it. My claims aren't ignorant, they are based upon the new atheists writings, and since dawkins and hitchens are the great spokesmen for the movement, they are the ones to refute, it isn't hard. They maintain that religion, primarily Christianity, has done nothing but harm humanity. Let's see. First the Greeks then the Romans left unwanted babies out "exposed" till they died. This was ended under purely Christian effort. Slavery was eliminated in the Roman empire, because of Christians. There was no concept of hospitals before Christianity, the first being in c. 360 AD by Christians in Syria. Later, every Christian congregation that had a Church building was required to have a hospice in that building for the care of the sick, by the Church which was totally free. When slavery reared it's ugly head in colonial America, it was Christians, not atheists who made every effort to stop it. ALL the abolitionists in the decades before the civil war were Christians, the underground railroad was operated solely by Christians and slavery was outlawed by Christians. Right there with a few sentences I have proven them to be ignorant, or liars, take your pick

 

[ChristineM]

Neither. I am saying degree's don't equate to reason and wisdom and advanced degrees , and many degrees don't equate to much wisdom or reason. Dear lady, (my assumption) I have tremors from MS and am not a typist. typing a response like this takes me much longer than most others. Apparently my observations are popular, as they draw quite a few responses. Responding to those takes time. I have the dawkins/hitchens/hitchkins material I need, it's just going to take a little time to type it. My claims aren't ignorant, they are based upon the new atheists writings, and since dawkins and hitchens are the great spokesmen for the movement, they are the ones to refute, it isn't hard. They maintain that religion, primarily Christianity, has done nothing but harm humanity. Let's see. First the Greeks then the Romans left unwanted babies out "exposed" till they died. This was ended under purely Christian effort. Slavery was eliminated in the Roman empire, because of Christians. There was no concept of hospitals before Christianity, the first being in c. 360 AD by Christians in Syria. Later, every Christian congregation that had a Church building was required to have a hospice in that building for the care of the sick, by the Church which was totally free. When slavery reared it's ugly head in colonial America, it was Christians, not atheists who made every effort to stop it. ALL the abolitionists in the decades before the civil war were Christians, the underground railroad was operated solely by Christians and slavery was outlawed by Christians. Right there with a few sentences I have proven them to be ignorant, or liars, take your pick

The fact they hold advanced qualifications shows they are not ignorant, they may be total dorks but certainly not ignorant.

Aww, and i have reading/writing problems with dyslexia and constant pain from a shrapnel wound so don't expect me to roll over because you have ms. The sympathy ploy does not work.

You claim the proof, show it rather than waffling in indignation.

So now you are griping about cultures you don't like?
Note that in recorded history over 800 million violent and premature deaths are attributed directly to religion, the highest proportion to Christianity.


Then i got bored with the irrelevant religious propaganda that is just so much preaching lies and ignorance so i skipped it. Seems you like to waffle a lot when you can't get your own way.

You have proven nothing but the fact you can stomp your foot in incredulity but fail to provide any citations or evidence to back you up

What you have proved is you have a very narrow opinion and a lot of anger




​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My claims aren't ignorant, they are based upon the new atheists writings, and since dawkins and hitchens are the great spokesmen for the movement, they are the ones to refute, it isn't hard. They maintain that religion, primarily Christianity, has done nothing but harm humanity. Let's see. First the Greeks then the Romans left unwanted babies out "exposed" till they died. This was ended under purely Christian effort. Slavery was eliminated in the Roman empire, because of Christians. There was no concept of hospitals before Christianity, the first being in c. 360 AD by Christians in Syria. Later, every Christian congregation that had a Church building was required to have a hospice in that building for the care of the sick, by the Church which was totally free. When slavery reared it's ugly head in colonial America, it was Christians, not atheists who made every effort to stop it. ALL the abolitionists in the decades before the civil war were Christians, the underground railroad was operated solely by Christians and slavery was outlawed by Christians. Right there with a few sentences I have proven them to be ignorant, or liars, take your pick

You've attacked a straw man. Who is claiming that Christianity has done nothing but harm humanity? I've never heard either Dawkins or Hitchens make that claim.

It would be a foolish argument since it is easily refuted and deflects away from the tremendous harm that the church has done. Look at your answer above. You had no need to address that harm.

The argument is that today, the church does net harm, and that the world would be better if it had less influence. What the church may have done for the good or ill in the past aren't relevant in deciding whether we should support, preserve, and encourage the church, or the opposite. If it is making a net contribution to the human condition, then the answer is different than if it is a net harm.

Antitheism, by which I mean not opposition to all religions and all religious activity, but more specifically, opposition to Christianity and Islam - a position that somebody recently suggested we call "anti-Abrahamism" - is the position that these two religions do much more harm than good, and it is generally felt as well that whatever good they do can be done without them.

Just the huge number of dollars that adherents divert to churches rather than dedicated charities helping those in need is a huge societal loss. Most of those dollars go to promoting Christianity - building churches, evangelizing, clergy's salaries, etc.. - rather than supporting the needy like battered women, the homeless, and pets needing rescue. Presumably, people give less to these worthy recipients if they give more to their churches. The odd soup kitchen, which doubles as an evangelizing opportunity, doesn't offset that.

 

[columbus]

Ignorance simply means uninformed. He makes rash and factually incorrect statements about the Bible all the time, either he hasn't read it and is listening to other peoples view;'s,

This is true of religious people as well.
In another thread a Christian asserted the Apostle Paul was a minister to the Gentiles. He based this claim on "the Gospel ".
When I pointed out that Paul isn't in any Gospel he changed the subject to the authorship of Luke, who is the author of Acts, as if that made his assertion less wrong.
I see that sort of thing all the time. Christians misrepresenting the Scripture when it suits them.

I see the same thing in discussions of abortion, which really gets to me.
Tom

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please excuse the ragged typing, I have MS, and some days the tremors aren't bad and some days they are. I need to proof read better

Sorry to read that, Shmogie. No wonder you're selective regarding who you answer.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry to read that, Shmogie. No wonder you're selective regarding who you answer.

Thank you. It makes me look like I don't follow through on what I said I would post, which I try do do. The recriminations here are tiny when compared to my wife's when my legs are wobbly on days set aside to work in the yard !! Over all she has been wonderful and wonderfully supportive. It's late onset so I will die of something else before it kills me !

 

[shmogie]

This is true of religious people as well.
In another thread a Christian asserted the Apostle Paul was a minister to the Gentiles. He based this claim on "the Gospel ".
When I pointed out that Paul isn't in any Gospel he changed the subject to the authorship of Luke, who is the author of Acts, as if that made his assertion less wrong.
I see that sort of thing all the time. Christians misrepresenting the Scripture when it suits them.

I see the same thing in discussions of abortion, which really gets to me.
Tom

Yep , I agree totally. Christians are humans with all the human traits. That is why I emphasize over and over again that a written philosophy and way of life cannot be judged by those who propose to follow the philosophy and the written instructions for life, disappointment, or in the case of some atheists, joy is sure to follow in many cases.

 

[shmogie]

You've attacked a straw man. Who is claiming that Christianity has done nothing but harm humanity? I've never heard either Dawkins or Hitchens make that claim.

It would be a foolish argument since it is easily refuted and deflects away from the tremendous harm that the church has done. Look at your answer above. You had no need to address that harm.

The argument is that today, the church does net harm, and that the world would be better if it had less influence. What the church may have done for the good or ill in the past aren't relevant in deciding whether we should support, preserve, and encourage the church, or the opposite. If it is making a net contribution to the human condition, then the answer is different than if it is a net harm.

Antitheism, by which I mean not opposition to all religions and all religious activity, but more specifically, opposition to Christianity and Islam - a position that somebody recently suggested we call "anti-Abrahamism" - is the position that these two religions do much more harm than good, and it is generally felt as well that whatever good they do can be done without them.

Just the huge number of dollars that adherents divert to churches rather than dedicated charities helping those in need is a huge societal loss. Most of those dollars go to promoting Christianity - building churches, evangelizing, clergy's salaries, etc.. - rather than supporting the needy like battered women, the homeless, and pets needing rescue. Presumably, people give less to these worthy recipients if they give more to their churches. The odd soup kitchen, which doubles as an evangelizing opportunity, doesn't offset that.

Lets start with the last paragraph first. Christians have every right to spend their money as they see fit. Since the Church is a very important part of their life, they support the Church. Like a large percentage of Christian's I spend much more every month on direct charities than the average American. I didn't write that for attaboys, I wrote it because, as a Christian, I am simply following through on my faith as millions and millions of Christian's do. There are many that do much, much, more. I haven't seen any statistics, but I would suggest that Christians are much more generous to honest (many non Christian) charities. In fact, Christians are manipulated because of their generosity. A few weeks ago I won a million dollars plus five thousand dollars a month for life from Publishers Clearing house ! The man giving me this grand news peppered his pitch with comments like " God has been so good to you" and "praise God" and "think what you can do for the less fortunate now", He didn't speak good English, and somehow I lost the phone number he gave me, before I could call (overseas) to contact the awards department to see what I had to do ($$) to get my prize.

Now, to your "anti Abrahamism". To lump Christianity together with islam as if there were some moral equivalency between them is ignorant ( lacking knowledge of history and the foundation beliefs) disgusting and personally very offensive to me. In addition the new atheist movement NEVER acknowledges the rape, butchery, torture, brutality and decimation brought to hundreds of millions by atheist led nations, as if atheism gets a pass for the destruction and murder.

You've attacked a straw man. Who is claiming that Christianity has done nothing but harm humanity? I've never heard either Dawkins or Hitchens make that claim.

It would be a foolish argument since it is easily refuted and deflects away from the tremendous harm that the church has done. Look at your answer above. You had no need to address that harm.

The argument is that today, the church does net harm, and that the world would be better if it had less influence. What the church may have done for the good or ill in the past aren't relevant in deciding whether we should support, preserve, and encourage the church, or the opposite. If it is making a net contribution to the human condition, then the answer is different than if it is a net harm.

Antitheism, by which I mean not opposition to all religions and all religious activity, but more specifically, opposition to Christianity and Islam - a position that somebody recently suggested we call "anti-Abrahamism" - is the position that these two religions do much more harm than good, and it is generally felt as well that whatever good they do can be done without them.

Just the huge number of dollars that adherents divert to churches rather than dedicated charities helping those in need is a huge societal loss. Most of those dollars go to promoting Christianity - building churches, evangelizing, clergy's salaries, etc.. - rather than supporting the needy like battered women, th