Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[beerisit]

But because we are believers,then we know that there is a judgement day,
if the oppressor escaped earth laws,then he will not escape god's punishment.

But for you that seems nonsense,because you only beleive that you're here to
enjoy your life for some limits.

Oh mate which of us will be more surprised on the occasion of our death, you or I ?

 

[Kathryn]

Oh mate which of us will be more surprised on the occasion of our death, you or I ?

It's a pretty safe bet to place that ALL of us are in for some surprises upon meeting our demise. Or Maker.

 

[beerisit]

It's a pretty safe bet to place that ALL of us are in for some surprises upon meeting our demise. Or Maker.

You got that right sister.

 

[1robin]

Well you never answered in the first place concerning the bombing of London, But I'm sure your god will allow that lie to slip by, well maybe I'm not sure at all, since I don't know him.

AS an amateur historian I must concede that my fathers experiences in post war Japan pale into insignificance. But surely what we were discussing was neither my fathers experiences or the US propaganda or the rights or wrongs of German aggression or Japanese obscenities, what we are discussing is the OBJECTIVE view, supposedly from your god, purported by you that the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden were justified by your god, but the bombing of London was not justified in your gods eyes. Can you explain your gods position (since you claim knowledge of it) that the deaths of thousands of Japanese are justified but he believes that the same of the English kids isn't. It's just that they are all his children?

Well keep in mind I am giving you my opinion that is consistent with my understanding of revelation. Unlike most atheist's I do not consider my opinion adequate to judge God or speak for him outside of revelation. Concerning London, The Germans started the war its self and they also launched the unprovoked attack on England. Up until this time England had only reacted to Germany mostly in defense of France or its fleet. They hadn't made any offensive moves that justified the attack by Hitler. Britain did attack Berlin at least once but that was in reaction to the targeting of civilians by Germany. The attacks made on London were made not to damage military capability; in fact they abandoned their war against the RAF because it wasn't succeeding. They instead tried to wipe out civilians and religious icons and infrastructure. This in my opinion was unjustified and I believe my opinion is consistent with biblical precedent. Israel enraged God by unjustly attacking other nations or groups. I am not claiming God looked down and thought the destruction of hundreds of thousands was good. I think he would judge it justified in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, but not in London. The God of the bible allows for the fact that the best we can do many times is to act with justification but not with perfection. God on several occasions revealed his terrible wrath against completely unrepentant nations in the bible. He did so as a last resort but it was terrible when it came. This is the same dynamic involved in your questions. We offered Japan a surrender many times. Whether I have correctly devined God's position or not is not the main point. The point is that God has all the factors compared to our finite knowledge and so his judgment would be objective regardless of which way he judged. It would be correct and absolute.

There are only two choices:

1. God exists and so objective morals exist. This would pass but not need a formal philisophical proof. If the biblical God exists then whatever his moral requirements and positions are concerned they are objective in effect even if not in nature, because they supercede and are independant of human opinion. Especially in that he will be the final judge in the end.

2. God does not exist and so objective values don't exist.


Just to streamline this somewhat:
1. Do you believe that a non-transcendent (God) standard developed by men alone can produce objective moral standards?
2. Do you believe that if given that the Christian God exists that still wouldn't mean objective morals exist?
3. Do you believe that objective standards are necessary to guaranty a more just system than subjective ones can?
4. You have not supplied your alternate/counter action for the events you brought up. Please do so.

 

[beerisit]

Well keep in mind I am giving you my opinion that is consistent with my understanding of revelation. Unlike most atheist's I do not consider my opinion adequate to judge God or speak for him outside of revelation. Concerning London, The Germans started the war its self and they also launched the unprovoked attack on England. Up until this time England had only reacted to Germany mostly in defense of France or its fleet. They hadn't made any offensive moves that justified the attack by Hitler. Britain did attack Berlin at least once but that was in reaction to the targeting of civilians by Germany. The attacks made on London were made not to damage military capability; in fact they abandoned their war against the RAF because it wasn't succeeding. They instead tried to wipe out civilians and religious icons and infrastructure. This in my opinion was unjustified and I believe my opinion is consistent with biblical precedent. Israel enraged God by unjustly attacking other nations or groups. I am not claiming God looked down and thought the destruction of hundreds of thousands was good. I think he would judge it justified in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, but not in London. The God of the bible allows for the fact that the best we can do many times is to act with justification but not with perfection. God on several occasions revealed his terrible wrath against completely unrepentant nations in the bible. He did so as a last resort but it was terrible when it came. This is the same dynamic involved in your questions. We offered Japan a surrender many times. Whether I have correctly devined God's position or not is not the main point. The point is that God has all the factors compared to our finite knowledge and so his judgment would be objective regardless of which way he judged. It would be correct and absolute.

There are only two choices:

1. God exists and so objective morals exist. This would pass but not need a formal philisophical proof. If the biblical God exists then whatever his moral requirements and positions are concerned they are objective in effect even if not in nature, because they supercede and are independant of human opinion. Especially in that he will be the final judge in the end.

2. God does not exist and so objective values don't exist.


Just to streamline this somewhat:
1. Do you believe that a non-transcendent (God) standard developed by men alone can produce objective moral standards?
2. Do you believe that if given that the Christian God exists that still wouldn't mean objective morals exist?
3. Do you believe that objective standards are necessary to guaranty a more just system than subjective ones can?
4. You have not supplied your alternate/counter action for the events you brought up. Please do so.

So your god was on the side of the allies is your argument for objective morality, are you serious?

 

[1robin]

Upon reading the Bible or most other scriptures, many humans are far more qualified to develop moral standards.

If you assume a God with the attrributes of the biblical God exists. It is absolutely impossible for humans to develop a moral code that would even come fractionally close to the one that God produced. You can deny God but you can't assume God and then rule out the implications. He knows all there is to know about everything, we know a vanishingly small amount about anything. Who is more qualified?

Strawman. Most of the world, especially those who were occupied by the Nazis did not agree with their principles of gassing and burning humans. Duh.

I did not create an abstract concept. I gave you a historical fact (your straw man is a strawman) the German leaders (men more qualified than you to know) declared that their actions were consistent with the values of their government. Since Hitler ordered much of it then it's easy to see what they were saying. The point was, you operating from your framework could not have justified stopping them unless you appealed to that which you are argueing against.

Utter nonsense. Sin is disobedience to gods while people are in jail for breaking laws initiated by a judicial system.

Since laws are moral codes, and many are derived from a Christian foundation your reply is false.

That is laughable, Christianity may also be a made up religion and there isn't a shred of evidence to refute that.

You don't read much do you. Just on the textual integrity alone nothing else in the same ballpark. I will agree that I don't know but there are many philisophical, historical, and existential ways to judge which religion is the most more relable when compared with the others. You smug dismissivness betrays a obvious lack of knowledge concerning comparative religion.

Who said it was accountable?

Here is what you said "Like yourself, the Aztecs were trying not to sin based on their gods laws. That's why a gods laws and sinning are irrelevant in reality". It sure sounds like you are trying to establish a guilt by association point. It sounds like you are saying because the Aztecs did something bad because of their made up God then I should not use my God as justification for anything.

Faith based gobbledegook. Irrelevant.

This is philisophical. If the biblical God exists then by the nature of his characteristics it is philisophically consistent that his objective values would supercede your subjective values. You can deny God but not evaluate God seperate from his nature and it's implications.

How is yours or your gods standards more valid? See how that works?

I see how your insuffecient reasoning skills work. That was silly. If the biblical God exists, and he is described as the greatest possible being by the bible then it follows that every other being is subordinate. Once again: You can deny God but not evaluate God seperate from his nature and it's implications.

Then, you have no argument. YOU yourself just invalidated it.

My goodness, sometimes I wonder why I bother. That whole statement was set in the context of the absence of God. It is actually an unavoidable indictment of your position. It actually had no application to mine, I thought that was obvious.

Yes, they can and they do.

No they can't. Are you just saying anything you can think of. Your moral framework being absent an objective standard cannot even establish or justify a worth of human life. It is impotent. Why don't you try some intellectual gymnastics and prove me and even many atheistic philosophers wrong on this point.

And, that ultimate standard would be? (wait for it...)

The fact that your framework cannot possibly produce what is needed was the point.

Notice you said, "If"? Notice that your statement can apply to any god?

I unlike most biblical critics am understanding that you do not share my faith and I try to allow for that in my wording. I am not always successful but I like to pretend you have a valid position for your sake and to try to keep you critics civil in the discussion.

Perhaps, but your statement was definitely laughable.

Only if you smuggly assume you know what it is you cannot possibly know.

 

[A Troubled Man]

If you assume a God with the attrributes of the biblical God exists.

I don't make such assumptions, I just read scriptures.

It is absolutely impossible for humans to develop a moral code that would even come fractionally close to the one that God produced.

No, it isn't. In fact, it is highly likely your god doesn't exist and whatever is written in scriptures is all man made.

You can deny God but you can't assume God and then rule out the implications. He knows all there is to know about everything, we know a vanishingly small amount about anything. Who is more qualified?

I am far more qualified than your god, by leaps and bounds. I'm not petty and selfish to demand others love and worship me, for starters.

Since laws are moral codes, and many are derived from a Christian foundation...

Baloney.

You don't read much do you.

Perhaps, a great deal more than you, evidently.

Just on the textual integrity alone nothing else in the same ballpark. I will agree that I don't know but there are many philisophical, historical, and existential ways to judge which religion is the most more relable when compared with the others. You smug dismissivness betrays a obvious lack of knowledge concerning comparative religion.

I noticed you did not refute the fact that Christianity is a made up religion.

It sounds like you are saying because the Aztecs did something bad because of their made up God then I should not use my God as justification for anything.

I merely compared what your god wants you to do and their god wants them to do.

This is philisophical. If the biblical God exists then by the nature of his characteristics it is philisophically consistent that his objective values would supercede your subjective values. You can deny God but not evaluate God seperate from his nature and it's implications.

Notice that you keep using the word "IF" to define your gods existence. It makes the rest of your argument pure speculation, at best.

I see how your insuffecient reasoning skills work. That was silly. If the biblical God exists, and he is described as the greatest possible being by the bible then it follows that every other being is subordinate. Once again: You can deny God but not evaluate God seperate from his nature and it's implications.

Yes, "IF" your god exists. I can evaluate your god or any other god.

No they can't.

Yes, we can.

The fact that your framework cannot possibly produce what is needed was the point.

But, I can. And, I don't need to send anyone to hell because they don't worship me.

I unlike most biblical critics am understanding that you do not share my faith and I try to allow for that in my wording. I am not always successful but I like to pretend you have a valid position for your sake and to try to keep you critics civil in the discussion.

It's not a matter of sharing your faith, it's a matter of the validity of your faith compared with others.

Only if you smuggly assume you know what it is you cannot possibly know.

And, you do know? LOL!

 

[McBell]

Unlike most atheist's I do not consider my opinion adequate to judge God or speak for him outside of revelation.

I never did understand why so many people feel free to judge others yet cannot bring themselves to use those exact same standards on themselves or their god...

Though I do find it interesting how so many of them practice the very same hypocrisy Jesus literally threw a fit over.

 

[1robin]

I don't make such assumptions, I just read scriptures.



No, it isn't. In fact, it is highly likely your god doesn't exist and whatever is written in scriptures is all man made.



I am far more qualified than your god, by leaps and bounds. I'm not petty and selfish to demand others love and worship me, for starters.



Baloney.



Perhaps, a great deal more than you, evidently.



I noticed you did not refute the fact that Christianity is a made up religion.




I merely compared what your god wants you to do and their god wants them to do.



Notice that you keep using the word "IF" to define your gods existence. It makes the rest of your argument pure speculation, at best.



Yes, "IF" your god exists. I can evaluate your god or any other god.



Yes, we can.



But, I can. And, I don't need to send anyone to hell because they don't worship me.



It's not a matter of sharing your faith, it's a matter of the validity of your faith compared with others.



And, you do know? LOL!

That's it I don't have time to debate with someone who has taken such a pathetic, incoherent, and meritless postion which is not being defended with any detectable integrity. Are you just saying things you think will bother me or do you actually think your points are valid. I am honestly unsure. I appreciate and enjoy a good debate but this ain't it. I will take a sanity break and check in with you at a later time.

 

[1robin]

I never did understand why so many people feel free to judge others yet cannot bring themselves to use those exact same standards on themselves or their god...

Though I do find it interesting how so many of them practice the very same hypocrisy Jesus literally threw a fit over.

I am not sure if you are being sincere or not. The parameters contained in a moral framework derived from the human mind alone is potentially knowable and so it is judgeable. One that derives justification from a God, any God would necessarily be inaccessable in totality and so any judgement would be unjustified or meaningful. I judge other religions by their revelational integerity, philisophic consistency, existential adequecy, etc... I do not judge them because I didn't like what their God said. Let me amend that I may reject a religion because of some position their deity takes but that would say nothing about whether it is true or not. Can you agree with this?

 

[McBell]

I am not sure if you are being sincere or not.

Yes, I am being sincere.

The parameters contained in a moral framework derived from the human mind alone is potentially knowable and so it is judgeable. One that derives justification from a God, any God would necessarily be inaccessable in totality and so any judgement would be unjustified or meaningful.

Baloney.
The whole "do as I say, not as I do" excuse is rather pathetic when used for an all knowing all powerful deity.

I judge other religions by their revelational integerity, philisophic consistency, existential adequecy, etc... I do not judge them because I didn't like what their God said. Let me amend that I may reject a religion because of some position their deity takes but that would say nothing about whether it is true or not. Can you agree with this?

and by what standard do you use to judge other religions?
Do you use that same standard to judge your favoured religion?
Or do you, like so many others, merely take your favoured religion and use it for the standard by which to judge all others?

Are you even able to remove all special glasses and actually and honestly judge your favoured religion by the same standards with which you judge all other religions?

Almost every one makes the claims.
But how many actually walk the walk?

"Mind what others do, not only what they say, for their actions may well betray a lie"
~??

 

[waitasec]

I am not sure if you are being sincere or not. The parameters contained in a moral framework derived from the human mind alone is potentially knowable and so it is judgeable. One that derives justification from a God, any God would necessarily be inaccessable in totality and so any judgement would be unjustified or meaningful. I judge other religions by their revelational integerity, philisophic consistency, existential adequecy, etc... I do not judge them because I didn't like what their God said. Let me amend that I may reject a religion because of some position their deity takes but that would say nothing about whether it is true or not. Can you agree with this?

revelational integrity.... huh?
you mean if the revelation fits your POV it's the right one?
philisophic consistency... hmmm
christianity isn't consistent
existential adequacy... makes perfect sense, considering your stance on revelational integrity...and around we go.....

 

[1robin]

So your god was on the side of the allies is your argument for objective morality, are you serious?

God bless your heart, I can't figure out if you are making sincere attempts, mistakes, or jokes. I believe and the bible confims he sides with the righteous. That is more complicated than it sounds while God may have been on the allies side in the specific examples you mentioned he may have not been in other situations. God being on someones side isn't really the issue here. I said I do not think God would judge against against the allies in those particular instances. For all I know the captain of the Enola Gay was a satanist and is in hell if he is dead but not for the role he played at Hiroshema. I was addressing only those examples. Please try to sum up whatever you are trying so hard to drive at so we can move on this is getting silly.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I am being sincere.

I will take your word for it.

Baloney.
The whole "do as I say, not as I do" excuse is rather pathetic when used for an all knowing all powerful deity.

The overwhelming amount of moral requirements are easily understood includeing their motive. I was pointing out that if we accept God then there is .......I will state it another way. Explain how a finite mind can fully comprehend an infinate one.

and by what standard do you use to judge other religions?

Please read this again,
I judge other religions by their revelational integerity, philisophic consistency, existential adequecy, etc... I do not judge them because I didn't like what their God said. Let me amend that I may reject a religion because of some position their deity takes but that would say nothing about whether it is true or not. Can you agree with this?

Do you use that same standard to judge your favoured religion?

yes

Or do you, like so many others, merely take your favoured religion and use it for the standard by which to judge all others?

No but I do allow for an unintentional bias and try to compensate. At one time I completely rejected Christianity and was hostile to the concept. I researched the other major religions and found them wanting before I reexamined Christianity and found I was wrong about it in the most profound and emberasing way.

Are you even able to remove all special glasses and actually and honestly judge your favoured religion by the same standards with which you judge all other religions?

I recognize the merit in doing so and do my best

Almost every one makes the claims.
But how many actually walk the walk?

Very valid point. I do not claim to be a shining example of Christianity but fairly often I will make a decision or take an action based only on faith and other people have communicated their admiration at those times. The personal example of a few Christians I knew were what made the second most important factor in my becomeing one. Christianity is a little different than most other religions in this respect maybe all. It graples with the reality no man can ever measure up to a godly standard of anykind. It acknowledges this fact and bases approval on your faith in the only human to do it in history. His perfect standard is accredited to us when we believe so the issue isn't about our obedience. We should be obedient but it is not the decideing factor if it was no ones going to make it. All other religions are man's attempt through discipline, etc.... to reach God. It doesn't work. Christianity is God reaching down to us. This is feasable.

"Mind what others do, not only what they say, for their actions may well betray a lie"
~??

Alrighty then.

 

[1robin]

revelational integrity.... huh?
you mean if the revelation fits your POV it's the right one?
philisophic consistency... hmmm

Would you critics please quit stating you know with any certainty whatsoever what another persons motives are. First of all you don't and second your wrong at least in my case virtually all of the time and it does a disservice to your credability and adds nothing worth saying to the discussion.

christianity isn't consistent

Spoken and backed up with adequite reasoning like a true scholar.

existential adequacy... makes perfect sense, considering your stance on revelational integrity...and around we go.....

I can do this too "Atheism is stupid" man that is easy no wonder you do it so much.

 

[McBell]

The overwhelming amount of moral requirements are easily understood includeing their motive. I was pointing out that if we accept God then there is .......I will state it another way. Explain how a finite mind can fully comprehend an infinate one.

Explain how you must be able to fully understand the infinite mind in order to see that the actions contradict the commands.

Please read this again,
I judge other religions by their revelational integerity, philisophic consistency, existential adequecy, etc... I do not judge them because I didn't like what their God said. Let me amend that I may reject a religion because of some position their deity takes but that would say nothing about whether it is true or not. Can you agree with this?

You did not answer the question.

Very valid point. I do not claim to be a shining example of Christianity but fairly often I will make a decision or take an action based only on faith and other people have communicated their admiration at those times. The personal example of a few Christians I knew were what made the second most important factor in my becomeing one. Christianity is a little different than most other religions in this respect maybe all. It graples with the reality no man can ever measure up to a godly standard of anykind. It acknowledges this fact and bases approval on your faith in the only human to do it in history. His perfect standard is accredited to us when we believe so the issue isn't about our obedience. We should be obedient but it is not the decideing factor if it was no ones going to make it. All other religions are man's attempt through discipline, etc.... to reach God. It doesn't work. Christianity is God reaching down to us. This is feasable.

This is merely your spin on it.

I am not saying that your spin is wrong, because to be honest, I do not know that it is.
However, I also cannot say your spin is correct.

 

[waitasec]

Would you critics please quit stating you know with any certainty whatsoever what another persons motives are. First of all you don't and second your wrong at least in my case virtually all of the time and it does a disservice to your credability and adds nothing worth saying to the discussion.

revelation is always subjective...empirical evidence isn't.

Spoken and backed up with adequite reasoning like a true scholar.

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.

Read more: How many different types of Christianity are there
christianity isn't consistent.

I can do this too "Atheism is stupid" man that is easy no wonder you do it so much.

as you appeal to subjective revelation, circular logic takes one no where...

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

A recent thread entitled "Are Athiests Racist?" got me thinking...

1. If you divided people into 2 groups, the religious and the non-religious, which group would have more racists in it?

And question 2...

2. If being a particular race caused a group to be more likely to be religious or non-religious, which of these groups would be more racist against the other?

Whatever your thoughts, I'd like to hear why you think this to be the case.

(for the record... I do NOT think race (color) is a factor in determining if you are more likely to be religious or non-religious... 2. is a hypothetical question).

I think racism has its roots in culture, not religion. But majority religions are cultural based anyway.

 

[1robin]

Explain how you must be able to fully understand the infinite mind in order to see that the actions contradict the commands.

This "actions contradiciting a command" changes the question somewhat you will have to clarify what you mean by this. My point was this: In order to look at an action in the bible and judge God concerning it would require that we know all the factors that he used to esablish justification for the action. Since God would know all factors that exist and we cannot then we are incapable of meaningfully judgeing his action. For example if God looked into the future concerning the society that would have developed if he hadn't sent the flood he may very well have seen that they all would eventually become canabals, rapists, and slave drivers and this would last for a billion years. That would make his flood judgment perfectly just. We could not know what he knew and couldn't judge his actions concerning the flood.

You did not answer the question.

You asked how would I judge other religions. I gave a small list that I used. How did I not answer the question? Did you want the entire list of criteria?

This is merely your spin on it.

What answer could I have provided that you couldn't reply with this to it. You wanted my view I gave it. However it isn't that simeple in this case you can check my spin against the biblical standard. If you do you wil find them consistent.

I am not saying that your spin is wrong, because to be honest, I do not know that it is.
However, I also cannot say your spin is correct.

I appreciate your honesty. You can never know about my views for certain but if you compare them to the bible you can establish a high probability.

 

[beerisit]

This "actions contradiciting a command" changes the question somewhat you will have to clarify what you mean by this. My point was this: In order to look at an action in the bible and judge God concerning it would require that we know all the factors that he used to esablish justification for the action. Since God would know all factors that exist and we cannot then we are incapable of meaningfully judgeing his action. For example if God looked into the future concerning the society that would have developed if he hadn't sent the flood he may very well have seen that they all would eventually become canabals, rapists, and slave drivers and this would last for a billion years. That would make his flood judgment perfectly just. We could not know what he knew and couldn't judge his actions concerning the flood.


.

An all powerful being couldn't come up with a better plan than total destruction? I mean there were an infinite number of plans available to him. I think I'm capable of judging those actions as unconscionable. He wasn't your local green grocer you know.