Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

I also must have said a thousand times we have made a career of ignoring what our conscience dictates. We can even as the bible says seer our consciences to a level we no longer hear anything from them.

Then what's the point of writing morality on our hearts?

Seems like a cop out answer to me.

Morality has differed very little as far as general principles go. Chesterton said men do not have a problem agreeing what is wrong, they just disagree about what wrongs to excuse. Since the two primary themes in the Bible are we know what is right, yet we do not always choose it reality as usually reflects this accurately. Very few cultures have ever legalized murder, they just differ on which killings they will consider murder. All of us agree in principle yet the evil take advantage of real or invented ambiguity in apprehension.

You just finished talking about how Hitler's morality differs from Dawkins which differs from Nietzsche's which differs from Liberals', etc.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Most of this is just a complain again but I will point out one thing.

The majority of NT scholars agree to these three historical events among many others.

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified and died on a Roman cross.
3. His tomb was found empty.
4. Eyewitnesses sincerely recorded his appearance to them even among his enemies after death.

None of this proves him the messiah but that is by far the best explanation and he is also the most textually attested character in ancient history. If you deny his historicity you can not grant anyone else's without a double standard.

None of that is provable and we have no eyewitness accounts of him. The gospels are not history but they include some historical settings and figures to provide context for the mythological stories they contain. It's like many other myths and even fiction novels in that way. Jesus reminds me a lot of the Greek figure, Orpheus, who is also mythological. He was a device used by mystery cults to impart spiritual teachings. It was only later on that Jesus was presumed to be a real person by more mundane figures of the cult. They won out in the end because they gained political backing up to the level of the emperor who was able to enforce their doctrine through edicts and persecution of other sects.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When that is part of the claims I made I will include that. Just can't get a handle on that admitting you might have been mistaken thing so far, huh?

Here's what you claimed about scholarly agreement (Sorry. I tend to keep good records):

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified and died on a Roman cross.
3. His tomb was found empty.
4. Eyewitnesses sincerely recorded his appearance to them even among his enemies after death.

But of course #1, #2 and #3 are false. Scholars do not agree with them.

 

[johnhanks]

My point was that morality cannot be redefined as happiness, ease of living, or human flourishing. Morality is not any of those things specifically. It is a set of laws concerning absolute right and wrong.

No, that is what we call a moral code. Morality in the sense that I (and perhaps Favlun) refer to is a specific mental capacity that humans possess which leads us to classify actions, motivations etc as right or wrong - i.e. to generate a moral code. Early human or pre-human groups whose members possessed this faculty would have thrived better than those that did not, so its possession was a selective advantage. Of course, the particular socioeconomic circumstances of a group influenced the specific rights or wrongs they defined - slavery and selective infanticide could easily be "justified" when expedient.

Let me illustrate one problematic example:

If we claim human flourishing is the goal. Without God this is simple speciesm because we have no way to credit humans life with more worth than any other biological life. We simply oppress cows the same way we would a slave yet call it moral. That is not morality, it is moral hypocrisy. However if God exists then humans do have an objective right and value that allows us to eat other biological forms. Multiply that one example times a million and the gross deficiency of ethics over morality is obvious.

Life forms eating other life forms is a fact of biology; we evolved as omnivores. Moral choice has entered this particular arena only very recently, in societies wealthy enough to make choices about what they eat.

However all were the result of Hitler's actions or the actions of cultures acting on ideas contrary to the Bible and without God no objective criteria existed to indicate who was right.

No indeed, no objective criteria existed nor do they exist. But the bible provides ample justification for the eradication of people you can represent as irredeemably evil.

I did not see the need for perfect clarity here to make the point. Let me add some since you seem to desire it.


Most of the deaths in WW2 were the direct result of several main factors.

1. Nietzsche's philosophy. (Hitler personally gave a copy of Nietzsche's work to Mussolini and Stalin)
2. Accurate or distorted extrapolations from evolution.
3. Race superiority (which evolution would easily justify because it has never made two equal things ever).
4. False idolatry (which may have been the worst of all).

This kind of glosses over greed, hate, etc.... because the above is what justified their actions regardless of what motivated them. Military history is my favorite subject and wanted to make sure you did not mistake unfamiliarity with brevity.

I think you might benefit from some wider reading of your favourite subject. Beyond its crude nationalist and racist thuggery Nazism had no coherent or consistent philosophy, but cherry-picked ideas from whatever sources could be represented as supportive of its aims. When it suited his purposes Hitler drew on Christian rhetoric: "We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Any atheist who tried to argue from this that most of the deaths in WW2 were the direct result of Hitler's embracing of Christianity would be guilty of the same facile generalisation and prejudice that you have shown in the above quote.

50 millions lives were laid on the alter of not having a universal Biblical morality. Not one verse in the bible could have justified a single axis action.

Nor could the wholly secular moral code upheld by myself and most other atheists.

 

[psychoslice]

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil? , because he is your god, you made him the way he is , and now you must figure out if your creation of god is true or not, its all up to you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I really wish people would stop misinterpreting Nietzsche. He was brilliant and would've hated the Nazis.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I really wish people would stop misinterpreting Nietzsche. He was brilliant and would've hated the Nazis.

His sister if I remember correctly supported the Nazi's and altered his work to more align with them. But yeah a lot of misrepresentation here.

Especially in context of evolution and race. It's a good example of how improper education on a topic can result in extremely fallicious attempts to justify ignorant action.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

His sister if I remember correctly supported the Nazi's and altered his work to more align with them. But yeah a lot of misrepresentation here.

Especially in context of evolution and race. It's a good example of how improper education on a topic can result in extremely fallicious attempts to justify ignorant action.

Yes, indeed. Nietzsche hated antisemites and people with the urge to rule over others. Of course, he was dead by the time the Nazis came around so he wasn't able to defend himself.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, indeed. Nietzsche hated antisemites and people with the urge to rule over others. Of course, he was dead by the time the Nazis came around so he wasn't able to defend himself.

If anything Nietzsche believed in a world where people would be encouraged to be creative, and to aid others while being aware of the consequences of their actions...he also calculated WWI to like the year...but it's funny how despite him only being dead 100 or so years ago and indeed even 20+ years after his death his words were taken and twisted to mean something else and now we know him through that twisted lense...lol and he actually wrote stuff....

 

[1robin]

Then what's the point of writing morality on our hearts?

Seems like a cop out answer to me.

Because then it would be available to create nations as benevolent as the US. Like I have said so many times no matter what objection you make it is far worse without God than with him. A free-moral agent at least is provided moral truth which to act on, instead of blundering around in the dark constructing 6 billon forms of morality with one being no more true than another. Only you would claim having a moral conscience available (if not followed) is a fault.

You just finished talking about how Hitler's morality differs from Dawkins which differs from Nietzsche's which differs from Liberals', etc.

I still claim that. If you unplug morality form it objective foundations and the conscience that reflects it then any abortion is possible and equally valid. Having a moral conscience provided does not dictate it be followed or a more convenient foundation being substituted. If you deny God you are free to drift on any moral current you wish, that is until having to reckon with it's author. This is not even an objection, I do not know what this was.

 

[1robin]

None of that is provable and we have no eyewitness accounts of him. The gospels are not history but they include some historical settings and figures to provide context for the mythological stories they contain. It's like many other myths and even fiction novels in that way. Jesus reminds me a lot of the Greek figure, Orpheus, who is also mythological. He was a device used by mystery cults to impart spiritual teachings. It was only later on that Jesus was presumed to be a real person by more mundane figures of the cult. They won out in the end because they gained political backing up to the level of the emperor who was able to enforce their doctrine through edicts and persecution of other sects.

I did not say it was provable. History is not determined by proof. It is decided by the best explanation possible. BTW not much of anything is decided by proof. Strictly speaking nothing is provable beyond the fact we think. Your going to have to use consistent and rational standards to even begin a debate.

I said the majority of those trained best to know is that those four events are historically reliable. So far you have not dented that claim.

 

[1robin]

Here's what you claimed about scholarly agreement (Sorry. I tend to keep good records):

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified and died on a Roman cross.
3. His tomb was found empty.
4. Eyewitnesses sincerely recorded his appearance to them even among his enemies after death.

But of course #1, #2 and #3 are false. Scholars do not agree with them.

All 4 are true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

All 4 are true.

Nah. You need to actually read some Biblical scholars. I doubt you can find a handful who think the NT writers were eyewitnesses. A few more might hold that his tomb was found empty, but only because of their cultural bias. There is certainly no historical evidence for it. Same with his 'unprecedented sense of divine authority.' That's theology made up by the gospel writers. Not history accepted by historians.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because then it would be available to create nations as benevolent as the US. Like I have said so many times no matter what objection you make it is far worse without God than with him. A free-moral agent at least is provided moral truth which to act on, instead of blundering around in the dark constructing 6 billon forms of morality with one being no more true than another. Only you would claim having a moral conscience available (if not followed) is a fault.

This isn't really an answer either. While there are some universal and widely accepted components to morality, it does differ from individual to individual. People act based on their moral conscience all the time and come to different conclusions about which action is more moral than another. Different cultures have somewhat different views of morality - for instance Russia apparently doesn't feel the need to treat homosexuals with dignity, while those of us in the West generally disagree. And finally, morality has changed over long periods of time - for instance, in the Western world we no longer find slavery acceptable.

So, how is all of the evidence that your god wrote the same moral code on everyone's hearts? It seems to me its a lot closer to what we would expect to find if morality comes from US.

I still claim that. If you unplug morality form it objective foundations and the conscience that reflects it then any abortion is possible and equally valid. Having a moral conscience provided does not dictate it be followed or a more convenient foundation being substituted. If you deny God you are free to drift on any moral current you wish, that is until having to reckon with it's author. This is not even an objection, I do not know what this was.

It's a response to your claim that, "Morality has differed very little as far as general principles go."

Two people can choose something that they think is a moral action, and come to two different conclusions. Remember those moral dilemma exercises we went over with the out-of-control train racing down the track and you have to choose whether to kill several people in order to save one, or vice versa? I gave a whole bunch of examples like that a while back.

A lot of people used to think slavery was moral (I've seen you argue that slavery in the Bible was moral) and now we don't. How does that fit into all this?

 

[1robin]

No, that is what we call a moral code. Morality in the sense that I (and perhaps Favlun) refer to is a specific mental capacity that humans possess which leads us to classify actions, motivations etc as right or wrong - i.e. to generate a moral code. Early human or pre-human groups whose members possessed this faculty would have thrived better than those that did not, so its possession was a selective advantage. Of course, the particular socioeconomic circumstances of a group influenced the specific rights or wrongs they defined - slavery and selective infanticide could easily be "justified" when expedient.

This is semantic splitting of hairs. When I mean morality, as almost everyone does, I mean objective moral truths. With God they exist, and without him as Ruse said "they are illusions".
To save time I do not care what terms are used. Mine are traditionally accurate but it does not matter what words are used. If God exists then it truly is morally wrong to murder and without him it is only against societal convention (at least some societies).

I do not care what language you dress up opinion or preference in morals based on evolution (which validate mass murder and slavery just as well) are still not objectively true. They are opinion no matter how you slice it without even a theoretical potential of being objective facts. Hitler used evolution to justify racism and genocide. You I am sure would not agree. The point is without God there exists no standard by which to know who was right.

Life forms eating other life forms is a fact of biology; we evolved as omnivores. Moral choice has entered this particular arena only very recently, in societies wealthy enough to make choices about what they eat.
No indeed, no objective criteria existed nor do they exist. But the bible provides ample justification for the eradication of people you can represent as irredeemably evil.

That would at best excuse your taking a plug out of a deer you ran down. It in no way justifies our pumping chickens and cows full of so many hormones they can barely stand. Cruelty exists in nature. It does not validate disdain. It does not justify one species imposing it's will upon all others. Nature exists in a balance, we exist at the expense of everything else's expense. Let me change my example a bit to clarify. By your criteria an alien species that shows up here and says we are now their food source and will be treated as we have treated all edible livestock you would either have to say well that is proper and take you place in your cell, or most likely you would instantly abandon your worldview and insist you had rights and certain things are in fact objectively wrong. Virtually no one, that is not a psychopath actually acts as if evolution is the source of morality.

I think you might benefit from some wider reading of your favourite subject. Beyond its crude nationalist and racist thuggery Nazism had no coherent or consistent philosophy, but cherry-picked ideas from whatever sources could be represented as supportive of its aims. When it suited his purposes Hitler drew on Christian rhetoric:

The Jews were not rounded up based on Nazism nor were Arians validated as being superior. That came to pass based on Hitler's and his henchmen's understanding of evolution and a strange Tibetan mysticism. Hitler only courted the church for it's influence. The minute they refused he turned his vengeance and writings against God and the church as he never did against his philosophical or evolutionary beliefs. However this is not really the point. I am saying without the objective reference point that only God provides you could never know him to be wrong as Dawkins rightly admitted. You may disagree but you can not know he was wrong, in fact he could not be wrong, he would only be out of fashion or inconsistent with your opinion.

We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Any atheist who tried to argue from this that most of the deaths in WW2 were the direct result of Hitler's embracing of Christianity would be guilty of the same facile generalisation and prejudice that you have shown in the above quote.
Nor could the wholly secular moral code upheld by myself and most other atheists.

I would not totally divorce his faith from his acts. Christianity has not a single verse that can be used to justify his crimes, and his writings make it very clear his faith was not consistent with Christianity or reason for that matter. Unlike evolution or atheism however I can show that as a fact. I have verses that communicate objective moral facts that condemn him even if he claimed to be acting in some God's name. Atheism does not contain these objective criteria's. They can only disagree. I would not separate his faith from his actions but I will and can easily separate his faith from the Bible by an objective criteria that atheism lacks. You can say your opinions about evolution and his do not agree but you cannot say his were wrong.

 

[1robin]

This isn't really an answer either. While there are some universal and widely accepted components to morality, it does differ from individual to individual. People act based on their moral conscience all the time and come to different conclusions about which action is more moral than another. Different cultures have somewhat different views of morality - for instance Russia apparently doesn't feel the need to treat homosexuals with dignity, while those of us in the West generally disagree. And finally, morality has changed over long periods of time - for instance, in the Western world we no longer find slavery acceptable.

That was not really a challenge. I see none here. It is an obvious advantage to have the truth even if some ignore it than to forever be guessing at it because it does not exist objectively. It is a net good to know that murder is wrong even if others choose to disregard it. For one thing people with moral clarity can resist with sufficient justifications of those who do ignore the truth. People disagree about historical events. Does this mean that either no history is true or the historical truth is irrelevant? Are you suggesting that only concepts with perfect agreement are based on truth or can be? What is the point here.

So, how is all of the evidence that your god wrote the same moral code on everyone's hearts? It seems to me its a lot closer to what we would expect to find if morality comes from US.

If only the bible is used by an alien species they would expect to find a common core to human morality and an inconsistent adherence to it. That is exactly what they would find. I do not claim this fact is all that convincing as a faith argument just that it is another factor that is perfectly consistent with it. Are you merely saying it is not that persuasive?

It's a response to your claim that, "Morality has differed very little as far as general principles go."

It hasn't. On general people are the same everywhere you go. As a Navy vet I have been around enough to know. IOW murder, stealing, rape, etc.. are almost universally condemned. That reminds me of something. For some bizarre reasons you said anything that occurred in nature justified human's practicing it. What about forced copulation as it exists in many species?

Two people can choose something that they think is a moral action, and come to two different conclusions. Remember those moral dilemma exercises we went over with the out-of-control train racing down the track and you have to choose whether to kill several people in order to save one, or vice versa? I gave a whole bunch of examples like that a while back.

People being given a conscience will almost always agree that murder is wrong, being also selfish and flawed they will disagree about what killings are justifiable. This is exactly what the bible predicts. This a very generalized parallel. Almost every culture has a belief in the original good of things and an idea that something went terribly wrong and needs to be rectified to restore moral sanity.

A lot of people used to think slavery was moral (I've seen you argue that slavery in the Bible was moral) and now we don't. How does that fit into all this?

Servitude can be moral. Your clapping a label with 20th century baggage onto a practice held in a place 3000 years ago and had radically different circumstances has been dealt with. Let me clarify a bit here. Even though many arrived at another conclusion validated by the bible but motivated by greed truly Christian view is that chattel slavery is objectively wrong. That is why Christians could tell other Christians they were wrong about it. It is because it contains an actual objective standard that what is right can be justified as existing absolutely. With evolution I can easily make a better case for slavery than against it but regardless nothing beyond my or your opinion exists to settle the matter. There are no evolutionary ten commandments backed up by a moral law giver. Even if Christianity was split down the middle with God there does exist a moral truth, without him there is not. With God I can say you or even another Christian is absolutely wrong and have the potentiality of being right in a perfect sense, without him I can disagree but never know who is right because moral right no longer exists as a category of truth.

 

[1robin]

Nah. You need to actually read some Biblical scholars. I doubt you can find a handful who think the NT writers were eyewitnesses. A few more might hold that his tomb was found empty, but only because of their cultural bias. There is certainly no historical evidence for it. Same with his 'unprecedented sense of divine authority.' That's theology made up by the gospel writers. Not history accepted by historians.

Since I am the only one who bothered giving anything beyond declarations my claims stand until you at least attempt it.

 

[1robin]

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil? , because he is your god, you made him the way he is , and now you must figure out if your creation of god is true or not, its all up to you.

That is a claim to knowledge and has the burden of proof. Prove I created God.

 

[1robin]

I really wish people would stop misinterpreting Nietzsche. He was brilliant and would've hated the Nazis.

As I said Hitler gave a copy of his book to Mussolini and Stalin. So one died by suicide after leading millions to death, one died with his fist clenched to God after killing 20 million of his own people, another was hung by his own people after killing many, and he himself died raving mad. I like the guy but his ideas seem to destroy whatever they touch even if many of them were correct. He was almost atheistic version of the mad prophet. He at least knew the cost of rejecting God.

 

[1robin]

His sister if I remember correctly supported the Nazi's and altered his work to more align with them. But yeah a lot of misrepresentation here.

Especially in context of evolution and race. It's a good example of how improper education on a topic can result in extremely fallicious attempts to justify ignorant action.

Exactly where did I misrepresent him. I think I quoted him correctly.