Gods immorality.

[Cecelia]

Rename "God" "The Devil" and everyone would agree his acts are evil.

The best you'll get now though is "GOD'S JUDGMENT!" Which is a stupid argument, because that doesn't make it moral.

[The Atheist]

Morality is relative. If Man A barges into Man B's bouse with a shotgun and blows B's brain onto the ceiling, we might call Man A "evil." But what if Man B had raped and murdered Man A's child? And what if Man B was found innocent in the trial because he had friends in high places?

A child might call his mother "evil" if the mother forbids desserts before dinner. Who's right? The child thinks its right and the mother thinks she's right.

Acccusing a deity of being "immoral" seems like an appeal to emotion. I guess some people here like that sort of thing, but it's lazy thinking and lazy thinking creates ignorance. Besides, there are better arguments against religion.

[Ivan Denisovich]

It's simple. God is like Soviet Union - whatever he does is justified, only justification somewhat differs. Though to be honest USSR at least had some justification for it's deeds, even if it was pile of steaming shit.

Here's another thought - you could even think of NT as something akin to Khruschev speech against the cult of personality

[robvalue]

They seem to hold the religious beliefs, and the idea that God is good, as unquestionably true. Then they work backwards from that. If anything contradicts this, they'll say anything at all to patch over the cracks rather than admit they might be wrong.

I do understand this. The mind doesn't like having deeply held, important beliefs challenged and it is natural for it to throw up mental defences to anything which might penetrate. These defences don't have to make a lot of sense; they just have to deflect. The idea that the belief might be wrong is so uncomfortable that any way of convincing themselves that the objection is unfounded is preferable and less painful than a thorough examination of their beliefs. I've been through this process myself more than once, just not in regard to religion.

There's also the fact that it involves admitting you've been believing in nonsense for (potentially) many years, even decades. This is a huge thing. It must be horrible to even consider that, and much easier to continue to live a comfortable delusion. In this kind of situation, I see breaking free as kind of an analogy for a second "growing up". It's finally being able to cast aside the need for a parent figure, to tell you what to do all the time. It's about thinking for yourself, and taking responsibility for your own morality.

The idea that whatever God does "is good" is a highly dangerous one. When anything an individual does is acceptable by definition, you have an unchecked dictatorship. There isn't any morality involved in this, there are just edicts.

My congratulations to you for getting through to him, and my best wishes to him as a new atheist! Maybe he'd like to sign up?

[Won2blv]

And this is why there are ~400,000 denominations (no joke) of Christianity today.  There's no consensus about important things, like the value of faith vs. good works, how forgiving god is in general, etc.  But, it's also why, despite the number of denominations in existence, everyone thinks their vision of god is the correct one.  Their god is really themselves.

There is more like 30-40k....

To the OP, one atheist criticism I hear is the fact that christians don't or can't say, "I don't know." So what if that was the answer? I don't know why god made the decision to wipe out tribes and nations but I trust that there was a valid reason? This isn't emotionally sufficient to the asker of the question but I think it could be valid. I never knew why god had to kill so many people but I do know though he had a purpose that he was working towards. So I guess this would just lead to the question, why do you trust god to that point? Just my thoughts

[robvalue]

Indeed.

The problem with this is that God should be able to accomplish any goals any way he wants, so that if the method involves killing, he chose to use that as a method. Otherwise, he's a lot less than all powerful. A lesser deity would be an awful lot easier to defend, for this reason.

Just putting all your trust in anything, without ever questioning or thinking for yourself, is dangerous. That goes for real and imaginary things.

Similarly, saying "God can do whatever he likes and it's fine by me" is surrendering your humanity.

These are general comments, I'm not aiming them at anyone.

[Little lunch]

'The Atheist', you're talking rubbish.
Are you only here to shit stir?
Seems like it.

[SteveII]

So, a little bit ago, I sent one of my friends a text saying "There is a man in the middle east who is giving orders to kill all male children in the town and all the virgin women, isn't that horrible?" and he replied "Heck yes." I said "Numbers 31:37 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man" (he is talking to moses in this verse) At first he seemed shocked, surprised and defeated. All he would say is "Cool" or "God loves you" and wouldn't refute the verse. Then he said he was thinking and he thinks i'm partially right. I gave him some contradictions in the bible. He has now told me he is an atheist, and that I was right.

This begs the question, although my friend was lucky enough to have the blinders taken off to see how imperfect the god of the bible is, why can't other people?

"Oh, you are taking it out of context!" under what context would it be right to kill all the male children and virgins of a town. I do not give it any slack.

"You are misinterpreting it!" If I can misinterpret anything in the bible, then god is a bad communicator, how can an all knowing god, not know how to word his verses to make sure everyone was on the right track. Also, it says there clearly, no amount of claiming I do not know what it says will make it a good thing to say, it is horrible that you are defending him, ironically, you are playing devils advocate.

What do you all think about blatant deniers?

I believe it probably happened.

However, what is your point? That God doesn't exist because he commanded such a thing? That does not follow. That God is a monster? To support that, you would have to assume there was no reason for these actions. Can you do that? Can you put yourself in God's head?

Related to this, why do you think God is under some kind of obligation to extend or preserve life? There is no basis for thinking that. Do you think humans have "rights" in relation to God? That would be to vastly misunderstand what it means to be God. 

Lastly, I won't comment on your friend, but do you really think these issues have not been brought up before (especially among Christians) for literally thousands of years? Do you really believe that there is not a ten thousand pages written for every objection you can come up with? Your arguments are not new and they are not persuasive to someone who allows for the possibility of God's existence and really tries to understand how it might all work together.

EDIT: I found this if you want to educate yourself to the oppositions thoughts on the subject: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/did-god-c...-testament

[Time Traveler]

So, a little bit ago, I sent one of my friends a text saying "There is a man in the middle east who is giving orders to kill all male children in the town and all the virgin women, isn't that horrible?" and he replied "Heck yes." I said "Numbers 31:37 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man" (he is talking to moses in this verse) At first he seemed shocked, surprised and defeated. All he would say is "Cool" or "God loves you" and wouldn't refute the verse. Then he said he was thinking and he thinks i'm partially right. I gave him some contradictions in the bible. He has now told me he is an atheist, and that I was right.

This begs the question, although my friend was lucky enough to have the blinders taken off to see how imperfect the god of the bible is, why can't other people?

"Oh, you are taking it out of context!" under what context would it be right to kill all the male children and virgins of a town. I do not give it any slack.

"You are misinterpreting it!" If I can misinterpret anything in the bible, then god is a bad communicator, how can an all knowing god, not know how to word his verses to make sure everyone was on the right track. Also, it says there clearly, no amount of claiming I do not know what it says will make it a good thing to say, it is horrible that you are defending him, ironically, you are playing devils advocate.

What do you all think about blatant deniers?

While attempting to categorize people is always imperfect, I think "deniers" come in three general forms from my experience: The first are the poor indoctrinated folks who don’t think too deeply about religion or philosophy, simply finding comfort in their church community, the promises of an afterlife in heaven, and believing Sky Daddy loves them. They are more than happy to be a lamb amidst a greater flock. They allow the church authorities to do their thinking for them in matters regarding acceptable science and morality. Their goal isn’t objective truth, but harmony, easy answers, and warm fuzzies. When confronted with logical contradictions, their form of denial is to generally shy away or, when pressed, retreat to patterned responses: “God loves you.” These people may harbor many internal doubts, but would rather not rock their world exploring hard questions and risk potentially shifting paradigms.

The second form of deniers are those that do think deeply about religion and its doctrines, but twist themselves into knots attempting to weave a logically consistent narrative from frayed threads. They start from the immovable premise that an omnibenevolent god exists, and work backwards from there. Any confrontation is met with a battery of pre-prepared responses, from Kalam to Intelligent Design arguments. They take refuge in these arguments because they are logically possible (however improbable or inconsistent). When confronted with an argument they haven’t heard before or are not well versed in, they often reply with belligerence or dismissive laughter. They quote and revere the science which conforms to their preconceived dogma, deriding everything else. They claim absolute knowledge of the extant divine, and rarely admit defeat or express uncertainty. These are the “blatant deniers,” apologists whom atheists spend the majority of their time debating.

The final form of denier are those individuals who explore their concerns, express their doubts, and truly want to know the way the world really is rather than how they merely wish it to be. They often exhibit traits from the other two categories, and their immediate knee-jerk response might be one of denial, but these individuals are more likely to concede a valid point and be persuaded by evidence and reason. I believe it is these people who, though they may have been indoctrinated early on, are most capable of changing worldviews. Your friend sounds like he was receptive to rationally examining the biblical contradictions you supplied and followed the implications to a logical conclusion. Kudos to him and others who abandoned denial for reason.

[KevinM1]

And this is why there are ~400,000 denominations (no joke) of Christianity today.  There's no consensus about important things, like the value of faith vs. good works, how forgiving god is in general, etc.  But, it's also why, despite the number of denominations in existence, everyone thinks their vision of god is the correct one.  Their god is really themselves.

There is more like 30-40k....

You're right, I added one too many 0's.  Still, the point remains.