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

[Ingledsva]

Just tears.

Trail of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Praise God! Society was wonderful back when they had prayer in schools, wasn't it?

I like that last sentence.

 

[1robin]

Good for you.

It was several entire classes that had this same experience.

The one and only year I had prayer in school was grade 3 (in Ontario, the Lord's Prayer was optional at the discretion of the teacher until the mid-80s - after that, they got rid of it across the board). My elementary school was built in the 50s and my high school in the 60s, but I still had an excellent education with excellent teachers, and barely a mention of God.

I did not suggest that no one can learn apart from God, with the exception that without God there is no way to get a universe to learn in at all. When God was not stripped from education we were on top of the world in test scores. Now and with hundreds of billions in additional education funds we are tenth or worse.

Since you did well in a "godful" environment and I did well in a godless one, I guess the lesson we can get from this is that God is irrelevant to the quality of an education.

It is a hard thing to prove beyond doubt as related but all the data correlates with my claims and your personal exception makes no difference or impact.

Nothing big - it just points out that in the US in 2011, there were 5 school shootings and 115 church shootings. If you doubt the numbers, I'm sure we can find corroboration.

I do not dispute them. The most Christian individual who ever lived was killed by false believers. He even said the world has hated us the same as it has hated him before us so do not be surprised. Only an atheist would see a prediction fulfilled and use it as proof faith is wrong.

Ah. It seems that the FBI has a different hypothesis than you do about trends in gang violence in schools:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/national-gang-threat-assessment-2009-pdf
... but I'm sure that you have much more expertise in figuring out the causes of crime than they do.

I sure have more options than they do. I said gang activity in schools not gang activity in Bed-Stuy. As for the FBI, they are not allowed (or would not do so) to posit God as the cause for anything. The world's secular organizations are not going to posit a hypothetical God for anything. That does not even enter into the thought process. I also did not even suggest there are not a whole lot of factors involved. I would attribute them all as symptoms of the same disease however no secular organization will allow the possibility of the disease to be considered so only symptoms can be named. The fact is that when God was in schools there was little gang activity. He is gone and they are in. If you deny the correlation that is preference based not reason based. What can't be denied on any level is that if the Bible were followed then these things would not exist. Years ago I heard on the radio a story about the president of the psychiatry association (or something similar) that committed suicide. He was a Christian and left a note that said that his profession had ruled out the existence of the concept of sin. He said he (and his colleagues) no longer could treat the cause but only the symptoms and he could not live being that ineffective.

Actually, the problems arise because they're not taught the importance of contraception or how to use it properly, and false ideas they might have of what causes and prevents pregnancy don't get corrected because all they get taught is "don't have sex."

That is not all they are taught. They pass out condoms in schools for goodness sake and the problem is getting worse. This is like saying the problem with murder is that they are not taught how to shoot straight.

I never said that the Bible has increased murder rates. I said that it's irrelevant. The Bible has quite a bit of immorality in it (including plenty of murder sanctioned by the God you say tells people not to murder),

Murder is unjustified homicide and claims that a fallible and finite mind can judge an infinite and perfect one is just meaningless. For instance the Canaanites walled live children up in buildings for luck and made them walk through fire for Marduk as an example. The Hebrews disobeyed once and left a king and queen alive. The queen had a son named Haman (I believe) he later was in the process of killing every single Hebrew in the empire of Persia had not God stopped him. I suppose killing him would have been unjust.

but in my experience, people's morality doesn't seem to be dependent on their religion; instead, I think most people use the Bible as an echo chamber or a mirror: they use it to reinforce the ideas of good and bad that they already have.

What morality exists without the transcendent at all. When Stalin rejected God he rejected the only basis for the sanctity of human life so what was wrong with killing 20 million biological anomalies. When Hitler adopted evolutionary justifications for his race ideas what was wrong with the flourishing of his tribe at the expense of others. Without God, morality is not moral. Morality becomes a value preference based on nothing but opinion. Right and wrong mean nothing absolutely, they are relative meaningless concepts based on preference. G. K. Chesterton said Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried.

 

[1robin]

Blood and sweat for sure. Blacks sweating and bleeding, Chinese, Mexicans and probably every new immigrant that came over, bleeding, sweating--each new religious group coming over looking for a place to practice their beliefs without getting tortured and killed.

Slavery did not put this country at the top of any list (good list anyway). Slavery is not allowed by the NT. In fact God is the only justification for the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and the dignity of man. Not to mention that Christians were a driving force in abolition. Add in that the motivation for a mother to send her son off to fight for the freedom of another race is much more supported by the Bible than that some think tank somewhere determined it was a good idea. Of the three hundred thousand plus that died to free the slaves over 200,000 were Christians. The Christian Lincoln is more responsible for the abolition of slavery by far than any other man. If you are trying to blame slavery on the southern Christians in some part I agree but since allowance for the practice can't be found in the Bible it is not God's nor the Bible's problem and I have no need to defend them. It was greed that produced slavery not the Bible and most slaves were slaves in Africa to their own people when they were bought. Most immigrants had a better life (no matter how bad) in most cases than where they came from. In fact the African American community is by far the most fortunate large African community on Earth. Of course bad things happened along the way. What is the point? BTW what other Christianity besides the Christian US had the moral consience to pay the Indians with money and land, died to free another race of people several times, rebuild Japan and Germany after wars they started. No other country ever did these things. Attack us, we defeat you, give you back your country and rebuild it for you. That is Christianity.

--it took liberal ideas and a little moral relativism to get us all melted down into some kind of multicultural mix didn't it?

Nope. Modern morality is a net loss. When the areas of moral fortitude, prosperity, technology ranking, manufacturing and academics rankings, safety, crime, poverty, and education rankings are totaled we were much better off in the 30's through the 50's before secular morality infected the nation. Not to mention aids, abortion, and the potential to destroy all life as we know it many times over. You mention slavery, compare that with the killing of millions of innocent babies per year. At least Christian ideals gave foundation to an effort to stomp out slavery.

But, one more question, weren't there people living here before all these "good" moral Christians came over and built this country?

You should not have gone there. I am a native American Cherokee. Of course some injustice occurred but by and large every tribe, especially in the mid west had killed their neighbors (other Indians) to take the land they lived on when Europeans got here. Many did nothing but kill each other constantly. Custer's Sioux were some of the worst. It was primitive gang land here. In fact most of the quintessential nomadic horse tribes migrated here just a 100 years before and killed off the peaceful farmer Indians and took their land yet got mad at whites simply because they were better at doing the same thing than they were. Indians after they quit raiding off the reservations (made necessary because of atrocities) had access to medicine, hospitals, commerce, and best of all Christianity instead of Shamanism and witch doctor like crap. The Indians suffered because of pride. There is currently (and for many years) billions and billions available to tribes that refuse to take it on principle yet complain they had no schools or hospitals. Indians down south were cutting out the hearts of tens of thousands and enslaving everyone around them before mean old Cortez stopped it. There is no case here. No race on Earth lives where they originated that I can think of.

My school never told what happened to those people. I wonder if they gave any blood and sweat?

I have investigated it thoroughly. Most Indians had no more claim to anything they lived on than Europeans did. Europeans sure made infinitely better use of it. Eastern Indians did get screwed by the whites many times but the bulk of the country was full of blood thirsty, thug like murderers of their own kind. Maybe you can explain this but it is not an argument. Why would a primitive society choose to risk total annihilation rather than allow an advanced in every way culture to assimilate them. There are many real but bad reasons to fight in that case but no non emotional, non-pride based reasons. If I was the chief of the Croatoan instead of killing every white man women and child in the area I would have said take me to England away from these disease ridden, blood thirsty idiots. If I was Sitting Bull I would have taken the hundreds of millions I agreed to sell the black hills for (that I wiped out 5 other Indian tribes for a few years earlier) and lived peacefully instead of killing white settlers, refusing to honor the deal I made, yet complain I don't have this or that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Slavery is not allowed by the NT. In fact God is the only justification for the sanctity of life, the equality of man, and the dignity of man. Not to mention that Christians were a driving force in abolition.It was greed that produced slavery not the Bible and most slaves were slaves in Africa to their own people when they were bought. Most immigrants had a better life (no matter how bad) in most cases than where they came from. In fact the African American community is by far the most fortunate large African community on Earth. Of course bad things happened along the way.

Let's jump ahead and talk about the recent past. Let's talk about segregation. When I was a kid in California, not in the South, in the 50's and 60's, Blacks lived on their side of town, Hispanics on their side, and even Asians were lumped together and kept in their area. Even churches were mostly segregated. Was it a liberal thing or a conservative thing to break down the "race" barriers? Was it a Christian thing? Martin Luther King was a minister, but what about the KKK? Were some of them Christian? I don't know where you were in the 60's but sex, drugs and rock and roll played apart in breaking down the Black/White barriers. I won't talk about the sex and drug part here, but in music, when young white kids were going crazy over the British rock groups, like the Rollling Stones and the Beatles, they were giving credit to the Black artists that inspired them. Was John Lennon and Mick Jagger Christian?

BTW what other Christianity besides the Christian US had the moral consience to pay the Indians with money and land...You should not have gone there. I am a native American Cherokee. Of course some injustice occurred but by and large every tribe, especially in the mid west had killed their neighbors (other Indians) to take the land they lived on when Europeans got here. Many did nothing but kill each other constantly. Custer's Sioux were some of the worst. It was primitive gang land here.

Yes, I think we need to go here. It ties in well with Lady B's OP. Is God evil? Yes, if he was the inspiration for the European invasion and their "manifest destiny" to take over the land. But how is it that a good God, a just God let several generations of native people live and die without knowing Jesus? So let's talk about these native people. Since you are a Cherokee, let me ask you, who were the "civilized" tribes? Didn't they have a constitution or something? Weren't they at peace with the Colonists? Then you say it was a "gang" land here? Not like peaceful Christianized Europe where everyone loved their neighbor. Then you say "Custer's" Sioux? Have you read Black Elk Speaks? It's a good book, but it makes the settlers look like the "gang" members.

...best of all Christianity instead of Shamanism and witch doctor like crap... Indians down south were cutting out the hearts of tens of thousands and enslaving everyone around them before mean old Cortez stopped it.
I have investigated it thoroughly. Most Indians had no more claim to anything they lived on than Europeans did. Europeans sure made infinitely better use of it. Eastern Indians did get screwed by the whites many times but the bulk of the country was full of blood thirsty, thug like murderers of their own kind. Maybe you can explain this but it is not an argument. Why would a primitive society choose to risk total annihilation rather than allow an advanced in every way culture to assimilate them. There are many real but bad reasons to fight in that case but no non emotional, non-pride based reasons. If I was the chief of the Croatoan instead of killing every white man women and child in the area I would have said take me to England away from these disease ridden, blood thirsty idiots. If I was Sitting Bull I would have taken the hundreds of millions I agreed to sell the black hills for (that I wiped out 5 other Indian tribes for a few years earlier) and lived peacefully instead of killing white settlers, refusing to honor the deal I made, yet complain I don't have this or that.

Which Christianity? Catholic or Protestant? Either way there are problems of being "blood thirsty"--witch hunts, Inquisitions, and Crusades. Then disease? What about the plague? Why didn't the Bible tell Europeans about germs and viruses? An oversight? "Take me to England"? Hmmm, the English never acted like blood thirsty idiots? Did you see the movie Gandhi? And then you say that Sitting Bull didn't honor the deal he made? I don't know, but I thought Native people respected the land and believed it must be shared and couldn't be owned or sold for money? Or is that the romanticized version? But to think that the Europeans made an "infinitely" better use of the land? Then should the United States take over all third world countries and put the land to better use? Should we make them an offer they better not refuse, an offer to assimilate or die. Or, maybe we are doing that but in more covert ways. I don't know, but I hear rumors. So what do you think 1robin?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a hard thing to prove beyond doubt as related but all the data correlates with my claims and your personal exception makes no difference or impact.

I'd like to see this "data".

I do not dispute them. The most Christian individual who ever lived was killed by false believers. He even said the world has hated us the same as it has hated him before us so do not be surprised. Only an atheist would see a prediction fulfilled and use it as proof faith is wrong.

Isn't it the same people praying in churches as praying in schools?

I sure have more options than they do. I said gang activity in schools not gang activity in Bed-Stuy. As for the FBI, they are not allowed (or would not do so) to posit God as the cause for anything. The world's secular organizations are not going to posit a hypothetical God for anything. That does not even enter into the thought process.

Secular organizations do generally feel a responsibility to give evidence-based explanations for the things they study, yes.

I also did not even suggest there are not a whole lot of factors involved. I would attribute them all as symptoms of the same disease however no secular organization will allow the possibility of the disease to be considered so only symptoms can be named. The fact is that when God was in schools there was little gang activity. He is gone and they are in. If you deny the correlation that is preference based not reason based.

From my perspective, you're arguing based on the post hoc fallacy, but haven't actually demonstrated that your correlation is a real thing.

What can't be denied on any level is that if the Bible were followed then these things would not exist. Years ago I heard on the radio a story about the president of the psychiatry association (or something similar) that committed suicide. He was a Christian and left a note that said that his profession had ruled out the existence of the concept of sin. He said he (and his colleagues) no longer could treat the cause but only the symptoms and he could not live being that ineffective.

Wait - isn't suicide itself a sin?

That is not all they are taught. They pass out condoms in schools for goodness sake and the problem is getting worse. This is like saying the problem with murder is that they are not taught how to shoot straight.

No, it's more like saying that firearms safety training will reduce accidental firearm injuries and fatalities.

Murder is unjustified homicide

No, murder is intentional killing of a human being except in certain extenuating situations (war, self defense, etc.), none of which apply to God.

and claims that a fallible and finite mind can judge an infinite and perfect one is just meaningless. For instance the Canaanites walled live children up in buildings for luck and made them walk through fire for Marduk as an example. The Hebrews disobeyed once and left a king and queen alive. The queen had a son named Haman (I believe) he later was in the process of killing every single Hebrew in the empire of Persia had not God stopped him. I suppose killing him would have been unjust.

When we're talking about an omnipotent being who would have had an infinite number of non-fatal ways of stopping that from happening, yes, it would have been.

And what's your excuse for this?

2 Samuel 12:13-19

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house.

And the Lord afflicted the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and he became sick. 16 David therefore sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground, but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us. How then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm.” 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. And David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” They said, “He is dead.”

This passage describes God torturing a baby to death in order to get even with the baby's father. How can you possibly justify this?

Exactly what horrible thing would David's infant son have done if God had let him live? And what evil was prevented by God tormenting the child for a week before he died?

What morality exists without the transcendent at all. When Stalin rejected God he rejected the only basis for the sanctity of human life so what was wrong with killing 20 million biological anomalies. When Hitler adopted evolutionary justifications for his race ideas what was wrong with the flourishing of his tribe at the expense of others. Without God, morality is not moral. Morality becomes a value preference based on nothing but opinion. Right and wrong mean nothing absolutely, they are relative meaningless concepts based on preference. G. K. Chesterton said Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried.

This argument of yours fails if you see any intrinsic value in human beings whatsoever. Do you? Or is the only reason you see human life as something not disposable the fact that you think your God has told you that he'll punish you if you kill?

 

[idea]

Relativity - there's no up without down, no right without left, no good without bad.... good and bad are relative terms, one does not exist without the other... life and death - rocks done't die, and they don't live either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Relativity - there's no up without down, no right without left, no good without bad.... good and bad are relative terms, one does not exist without the other... life and death - rocks done't die, and they don't live either.

... torturing babies for fun is evil, except when God does it.

I've always seen much more moral relativism (while simultaneously making hypocritical complaints about moral relativism in others) from believers than I have from anyone else.

 

[idea]

... torturing babies for fun is evil, except when God does it.

I've always seen much more moral relativism (while simultaneously making hypocritical complaints about moral relativism in others) from believers than I have from anyone else.

I agree that torturing babies is evil, but you misrepresent who God is - strawman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that torturing babies is evil, but you misrepresent who God is - strawman.

The only misrepresentation I made was the "for fun" part. In retrospect, it would have been more accurate to say "for spite."

Do you believe that the passage from Second Samuel I quoted is accurate?

 

[idea]

The only misrepresentation I made was the "for fun" part. In retrospect, it would have been more accurate to say "for spite."

Do you believe that the passage from Second Samuel I quoted is accurate?

I think there are a lot of things in the Bible that are inaccurate. I believe in a God who is loving, just, perfect, and good.



God is love. 1 John 4:8
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5

 

[averageJOE]

I think there are a lot of things in the Bible that are inaccurate. I believe in a God who is loving, just, perfect, and good.



God is love. 1 John 4:8
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5

In other words, you just cherry pick the parts of the bible you like and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

 

[idea]

In other words, you just cherry pick the parts of the bible you like and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

in other words, I recognize that the Bible went through the Dark Ages, and was changed by quite a few people. That's ok though, thankfully there are more scriptures than just the Bible to learn about the nature of God... or you can just go straight to the source, and learn first hand from His Spirit.

God really is good, loving, kind, merciful, and just. It's sad when people try to misrepresent Him.

 

[Copernicus]

in other words, I recognize that the Bible went through the Dark Ages, and was changed by quite a few people. That's ok though, thankfully there are more scriptures than just the Bible to learn about the nature of God... or you can just go straight to the source, and learn first hand from His Spirit.

God really is good, loving, kind, merciful, and just. It's sad when people try to misrepresent Him.

I think it's sad when people try to represent God. In fact, it can be downright dangerous to the rest of society, because the more people see themselves as God's representative on Earth, the less God comes off as good, loving, kind, merciful, and just.

 

[Ingledsva]

...
Murder is unjustified homicide and claims that a fallible and finite mind can judge an infinite and perfect one is just meaningless. For instance the Canaanites walled live children up in buildings for luck and made them walk through fire for Marduk as an example. The Hebrews disobeyed once and left a king and queen alive. The queen had a son named Haman (I believe) he later was in the process of killing every single Hebrew in the empire of Persia had not God stopped him. I suppose killing him would have been unjust.

1. The early Hebrew tribes also had child sacrifice.
2. They Hebrew were marauding desert tribes trying to take other people's land. Those people had every right to fight and kill them.
PS. According to the Bible the Hebrew disobayed over, and over, and over, and over ...!

What morality exists without the transcendent at all.

Sorry, BUT - this is one of those statements that needs to be called what it is JUST PLAIN WRONG!

The idea that there is no morality without God/religion, is wrong, period!

When Stalin rejected God he rejected the only basis for the sanctity of human life so what was wrong with killing 20 million biological anomalies. When Hitler adopted evolutionary justifications for his race ideas what was wrong with the flourishing of his tribe at the expense of others.

One does not need God/religion for each individual life to have meaning.

Hitler was raised Christian and used Christianity to raise his Christian nation to kill the Jews whom he reminded them killed their Jesus!

Without God, morality is not moral.

Again that is just BULL!

Morality becomes a value preference based on nothing but opinion. Right and wrong mean nothing absolutely, they are relative meaningless concepts based on preference. G. K. Chesterton said Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried.

LOL! It is the same for the religious, and non-religious.

How did those religious people justify murdering babies? Or how about KILLING those that didn't attend the temple on Sabbath?

How did the Hebrew justify the rape of children and sex slaves?

Ya-think it might have been "a value preference based on nothing but opinion."

*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think there are a lot of things in the Bible that are inaccurate. I believe in a God who is loving, just, perfect, and good.

And I believe you avoided answering my question.

Again: do you believe that passage is accurate?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

in other words, I recognize that the Bible went through the Dark Ages, and was changed by quite a few people. That's ok though, thankfully there are more scriptures than just the Bible to learn about the nature of God... or you can just go straight to the source, and learn first hand from His Spirit.

God really is good, loving, kind, merciful, and just. It's sad when people try to misrepresent Him.

Do you believe that Second Samuel was altered in the Dark Ages? If so, can you show me the original text that doesn't portray God as the torturer of an infant?

 

[Ingledsva]

Read Mein Kampf and get a better Idea of his thoughts.

I have read it. I'm GERMAN and Swedish.

*

 

[idea]

And what's your excuse for this?
2 Samuel 12:13-19

I do not think that God caused the child's death or suffering, I think David was the evil one who caused it. This is how I view all the instances like this, people reap the just rewards of evil actions, and then for some reason God gets blamed instead of the guilty party. The guilty party here is obviously David.

I think God allowed it (not caused, but allowed) to satisfy the demands of justice, an innocent life (Uriah) for an innocent life(child).

I believe that God is bound by, rather than created, the laws of justice. Euthyphro's dilemma - "Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right?? I go with option #2.

Do you believe that Second Samuel was altered in the Dark Ages? If so, can you show me the original text that doesn't portray God as the torturer of an infant?

There is no original text for any of it of coarse, and even if you did have the original text in the original language etc. etc. there's plenty of room for misinterpretation - just as the Sadducees and Pharisees misinterpreted their own original scriptures and didn't recognize Jesus. That's why you have to rely on the Spirit. The Spirit is real, and more reliable than words.

http://www.lds.org/media-library/vi...-01-010-patterns-of-light-the-light-of-christ

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not think that God caused the child's death or suffering, I think David was the evil one who caused it.

How did David cause the death of his son?

This is how I view all the instances like this, people reap the just rewards of evil actions, and then for some reason God gets blamed instead of the guilty party.

A prophet coming to you and saying "God's going to smite your child" and then your child getting smote is hardly "some reason".

The guilty party here is obviously David.

The Bible describes David as being guilty of several things, sure, but I fail to see how he's responsible for the death of the child.

I think God allowed it (not caused, but allowed) to satisfy the demands of justice, an innocent life (Uriah) for an innocent life(child).

That's not justice.

And if you really did think that it would be just to torture a baby to death because of his father's crimes, why would you have such a problem with the idea that God did it directly?

I believe that God is bound by, rather than created, the laws of justice. Euthyphro's dilemma - "Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right?? I go with option #2.

What "law of justice" demands the blood of babies?

There is no original text for any of it of coarse, and even if you did have the original text in the original language etc. etc. there's plenty of room for misinterpretation - just as the Sadducees and Pharisees misinterpreted their own original scriptures and didn't recognize Jesus. That's why you have to rely on the Spirit. The Spirit is real, and more reliable than words.

Mormon Messages

So you don't have anything to back up your claim. All right then.

 

[1robin]

1. The early Hebrew tribes also had child sacrifice.

Source please. Child sacrifice is strictly forbidden in the Bible. In fact one of its greatest lessons is Abraham being stopped by God from killing his child. It was as emphatic and unmistakable statement about the issue. Yes he asked him to do it as a test and because he could not deliver the lesson unless it occurred. He made it plain however that he would provide the sacrifice and to not harm children for religious reasons. He also did this because his descendants were to exist in the midst of barbaric heathens that practiced it. So even if true it has no impact on God or the Bible. I do not defend or place my faith in man.

2. They Hebrew were marauding desert tribes trying to take other people's land. Those people had every right to fight and kill them.
PS. According to the Bible the Hebrew disobeyed over, and over, and over, and over ...!

No the Hebrew were trying to get through the land. They offered to pay and guaranteed not to harm anyone yet they were harassed and harassed until God gave up and allowed them to attack. In fact it says several times that God had previously attempted to get those tribes to repent and quit killing children, drinking literal blood, and worshiping false God's and they refused so he destroyed them to prevent them from contaminating his people however yes, through disobedience his people suffered terribly at times.

Sorry, BUT - this is one of those statements that needs to be called what it is JUST PLAIN WRONG!

Ok, every time I mention morality I hope this will not be necessary and even qualify my statements most times yet I am always disappointed by atheists using the appeal to sympathy to win a word fight. An atheist can act just as morally as anyone can. The difference he cannot justify or ground it in atheism. Without the transcendent a moral idea is not moral it is a preference. You may say do not murder, but that is only an opinion or preference and does not make murder actually wrong. Without God we are biological machines, we have no more worth that a cow or a potato. When you kill and eat these things you are actually engaged in species not morality. You have just decided you are more valuable than corn and therefore kill it yet, there is nothing morally consistent about that. When a cannibal eats his cousin, on your view he has acted unfashionably and against a social taboo but not actually done anything evil. In fact unless you can show that evil and good exist as absolute categories of truth morality based in atheism alone is untenable. Yet you can apprehend God's requirements through your God given conscience the same as I can and may in fact be more obedient.

The idea that there is no morality without God/religion, is wrong, period!

Quite the argumentation. This is the equivalent to a 12 year olds nuhhhh - uhhhh. See if you can answer my question above and then we can discuss it further.

One does not need God/religion for each individual life to have meaning.

Whatever meaning you find in a Godless universe only exists or is relevant for a cosmic blink of time and ends in heat death. To me that is little better than nothing. Without God everything is ultimately futile and transitory and leads to the exact same end. If you are satisfied with that and desire no more than that is your right.

Hitler was raised Christian and used Christianity to raise his Christian nation to kill the Jews whom he reminded them killed their Jesus!

Man this stuff gets old. This argument is so flawed it needs to be numbered.
1. Hitler was never a Christian. He did dabble around with the Catholic Church as an adult (what he did as a child is irrelevant) for the sole reason he wanted the influence the church had in Europe and in an effort to clothe his political desires with divine validity.
2. As soon as the Church rebuffed him he turned on them with a vengeance. There are volumes of writings concerning his hatred of God and the church.
3. None of the evil acts he is famous for are justified in the Bible so his actions are no reflection on it or God.
4. He wrote and spoke about racism as it was derived from a pseudo Darwinism.
In fact his actions are consistent with a realistic view of what survival tactics and race superiority in evolution actually mean. Even Dawkin's agreed with this. He said that within evolution who can say whatever what he did was actually wrong?
5. Without the Christian nation's foundation for the justification for stopping him even though it cost 50 million lives saved the world from Godless tyranny.
6. How would you have justified stopping him? Mam you need to send your only three sons to stop Hitler from acting against social norms we arbitrarily made up but which are only relative and were derived by the exact same methods as Hitler's were. He however reached a different conclusion and so 30% of Germany must die. Now give us your sons. I for one would want a more solid foundation that Hitler was actually wrong to risk the lives of people I loved instead of acting morally out of fashion.

Again that is just BULL!

Who can argue with such scholarship?

LOL! It is the same for the religious, and non-religious.

Not even a little bit. My morality came from the timeless nature of a morally perfect God. It does not contain (hypothetically at least) any of the opinions of its adherents (so qualifies as an objective standard). Without God we simply make up rules that govern stuff we prefer or not but that is not a moral judgment it is a preference and it is composed one hundred percent of opinion of its adherents. So it is subjective, based on nothing absolute, and therefore is not moral. There is not even an argument for why I ought to do anything, including obeying the morality invented by people who reject God. If you say I am not to oppose abortion, the little kids argument on the playground is enough to counter that "Oh yeah, who says".

How did those religious people justify murdering babies? Or how about KILLING those that didn't attend the temple on Sabbath?

The same way people do so today by the millions I imagine. At least with God it is possible to show that murdering babies as a form of birth control is immoral. In fact eugenics and euthenasia is consistent with a Godless primate built for survival. Get rid of God and murder is now called a sacred right. Nice moral progress.

How did the Hebrew justify the rape of children and sex slaves?

You will have to give me the verse. I have read things about this before and it is not what you think or should I say want to think, but I will need to know what it is specifically you are addressing. BTW the NT forbids anything like this.