(January 25, 2016 at 7:27 am)athrock Wrote:(January 25, 2016 at 12:10 am)Crossless1 Wrote: See? I stand corrected.
I also stand by the observation that your insistence on explaining away a glaring moral shortcoming of your holy book and its god character is weak and reveals you as a relativist when it suits your apologetic needs.
My insistence?
Perhaps it is simply the insistence of atheists that God is immoral which demands a response. I mean, it's not like believers are sitting around anxiously discussing this amongst themselves.
As I have said repeatedly in this forum, if you're going to be an atheist, be a good one. If you're going to argue with believers, do it well.
Attempting to paint God as a moral monster because He gave guidelines for the treatment of slaves (v. prohibiting slavery outright) is a lame argument that fails to make the case atheists are trying to win. It is entirely possible that God could both permit slavery and be a perfect, loving God at the same time.
In the absence of a proof of contradiction, the "Immoral God" argument does nothing to advance the atheist's position that God does not exist, and therefore, it should be discarded.
It's a BAD argument.
Where do you get the idea that the "Immoral God" argument has anything to do with atheism? It seems to me that those who invoke the argument do so as a finger jab in the eye of those believers who think they have a corner on morality -- even more, that their god-based morality is objective and eternally unchanging.
I agree that it should be discarded as an argument for atheism, but I don't often see it used in that way. The poor quality of theists' evidence and arguments are really all one needs to argue for atheism. The alleged immorality of God goes more to the point of believers' inconsistency and dishonesty when defending their holy book(s). In that sense, it's a GOOD argument.
