Does Atheism make sense?

[Epimethean]

He has every right to deem that, because he doesn't believe in your silly skydaddy. What a load of rubbish you shovel out.

[Forsaken]

To the DarkestOfAngels: My counter-argument to your statement is within your statement. You don't have the right to deem that your morality is higher than god's, as in your godless universe there is no moral judge. Even the moral values that have you received from a christian-culture (assuming you live in europe or the Americas or certain places in africa.)

God doesn't exist idiot.

...as humans no longer have the right to dish out harsh judgment, as jesus took it all.

Yep, he took it all up his ass, as you Christians are doing...taking all the shit down your throat.

[Epimethean]

He does love to talk about slaves and everyone's lack of rights, doesn't he?

[The Grand Nudger]

Morality does not find it's origins in christianity, or anywhere in the bible. It's absurd to even imagine this would be the case. What did the jews do before they "received" the law? Did they wander the desert raping and killing each other before being given those two pieces of stone? Garbage. What makes you think anyone would want a moral judge? We have judges, they don't determine matters of morality, only legality.

All you've said here is "You don't have the right to question my opinions, because I've named them God." Color me unimpressed.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

To the DarkestOfAngels: My counter-argument to your statement is within your statement. You don't have the right to deem that your morality is higher than god's, as in your godless universe there is no moral judge. Even the moral values that have you received from a christian-culture (assuming you live in europe or the Americas or certain places in africa.)

"Though shalt not murdur" means to kill without cause.
"Turn the other cheeck" is what jesus taught, as humans no longer have the right to dish out harsh judgment, as jesus took it all.

a few things:
1) Human morality (including things like our desire to remove murders from society) is not uniquely a christian concept, as the rule not only pre-dates christianity and judieism, but exists outside of what you call 'christian culture.' Therefore, those morals are neither uniquely christian nor the bilble's.
2) In a godless universe, my morality is my own. It is not dictated to be by another being, so if I have good morals, then that speaks well of me and not someone else. What gives me the right to deem that my morality is higher than god's morality is that my moral center is more indicative of the promotion and advancement of life and individual liberty of what you would call 'god's creation.'
That is to say that when god murders almost all life in the world in the story of Noah because he doesn't approve of just who was having babies with whom (we call that eugenics today), tells us about how its okay for Moses to take women and girl virgins as slaves, brides, or bride-slaves, or when Jesus tells us that we shouldn't love anyone (wife, mother, father, or whomever) as much as him, or anything like that, then by realizing that god doesn't even follow his own morals (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc) then I can see my views of life is more indicative of the preservation and good will of of life, love, and liberty than his is and therefore I am a more moral person.
3) If human morality were dictated by god, then all people would have the exact same morals. Instead, there are very pious individuals and those who "sin" gratuitously. You can't even really claim free will in this case because god gives us morals and if god did not give us morals (according to the theist arguements to me) then we would all be sinners.
So god is clearly picking and choosing winners here and sentencing the loosers to eternal torture for having morals that god did not grant them.
4) "Though shalt not murdur" means to kill without cause.
All of the worst people in human history killed with cause. We wouldn't call them moral. Many of them were even christians (the crusades, for example, or the morality of christians in America calling for war on Muslims.) God's murders were little different in that respect.

So yes, for those reasons and more, I would say that most people, christian or not, have a more evolved sense of morality and justice than god does.
Therefore, I deem myself a higher moral authority than god because I read his book on morality and I find both him and it extremely amoral and NO ONE has copyrighted morality.

[organiccornflake]

a few things:
1) Human morality (including things like our desire to remove murders from society) is not uniquely a christian concept, as the rule not only pre-dates christianity and judieism, but exists outside of what you call 'christian culture.' Therefore, those morals are neither uniquely christian nor the bilble's.

If there is a god; than he predates everything that we have. Would it then not be reasonable to assume that he gave them laws too? All cultures would then originate from the root source of laws; god.

2) In a godless universe, my morality is my own. It is not dictated to be by another being, so if I have good morals, then that speaks well of me and not someone else. What gives me the right to deem that my morality is higher than god's morality is that my moral center is more indicative of the promotion and advancement of life and individual liberty of what you would call 'god's creation.'

I have put in bold all of your statements that use positive words with your morality. You say that you use society's judgment to call your own morality "good." Is that to say that morality differs between societies? That a society that endorsed baby-rape would be morally okay as long as it was acceptable within their society?

That is to say that when god murders almost all life in the world in the story of Noah

There is evidence that the story of Noah did not kill everyone on earth, but just within a certain area.

because he doesn't approve of just who was having babies with whom (we call that eugenics today), tells us about how its okay for Moses to take women and girl virgins as slaves, brides, or bride-slaves, or when Jesus tells us that we shouldn't love anyone (wife, mother, father, or whomever) as much as him

,

Please cite your scripture. I will give you some that involves the subject of rape...
This verse gives a punishment for rape. This verse gives the death penalty for raping a married or engaged woman. This verse condemns sexual immorality. Would rape fall under this category? This verse tells the rules of taking women in times of holy war.

or anything like that, then by realizing that god doesn't even follow his own morals (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc)

Where does he not follow this? The story of Sodom and Gomorrah shows us that god does not kill the innocent. (read the end of this link.) Before every violent act god does; the bible says that they were wicked and deserving.

then I can see my views of life is more indicative of the preservation and good will of of life, love, and liberty than his is and therefore I am a more moral person.

In the society that you live in, where life, love, liberty (all of which displayed in the bible) are considered morally okay, I suppose this would make you a morally correct person.

3) If human morality were dictated by god, then all people would have the exact same morals. Instead, there are very pious individuals and those who "sin" gratuitously.

Human morals aren't dictated by god. He gave us the rules; its our prerogative to follow them or not.

You can't even really claim free will in this case because god gives us morals and if god did not give us morals (according to the theist arguements to me) then we would all be sinners.

Im not quite sure I understand; please elaborate.

So god is clearly picking and choosing winners here and sentencing the loosers to eternal torture for having morals that god did not grant them.

We all deserve hell. Both you and I. It's through Jesus Christ that we are allowed exception.

4) "Though shalt not murdur" means to kill without cause.
All of the worst people in human history killed with cause.
We wouldn't call them moral.

If they killed with cause; then we must determine whether or not their killing was justified using a moral standard (the only in existence being the bible and morality given to us by god.) Which it usualy isn't.

Many of them were even christians (the crusades, for example, or the morality of christians in America calling for war on Muslims.)

Just because Christians do something doesn't mean that it is backed by god. Being post jesus' sacrifice, I would say that the crusade wasn't.

God's murders were little different in that respect.

God only killed the "wicked" as displayed in many, many different bible stories. (Do to the extent of these stories, for the sake of time i have not cited them here. However, if you would like to know more about them, please say so)

So yes, for those reasons and more, I would say that most people, christian or not, have a more evolved sense of morality and justice than god does.

How do you know what is moral? Is it in your genes? How and why would evolution put this in you? In your response, please refrain from using words like "better" and "worse," as in a universe with no grand moral judge, they are subjective and relative, and thus cannot be used to prove or disprove a universal truth.

Therefore, I deem myself a higher moral authority than god because I read his book on morality and I find both him and it extremely amoral and NO ONE has copyrighted morality.

As I said earlier, this is a non-point. Your 'morality' is subjective and relative. If god does exist, (and for the sake of arguing his morality, we must assume he does) then he created your moral standard. Everything that you believe to be right or wrong has a root to god. So something must give here; it appears your sense of morality contradicts that of the bible in some cases. We have two options here;

1. society has turned from certain christian values (That homosexuality and abortion is wrong for examples) and therefore, since you grew up in a culture that found them tolerable, you find them tolerable.
2. You are misreading and misinterpreting the bible, and really you agree with what it says.

Take your pick.

[dloubet]

If there is a god; than he predates everything that we have. Would it then not be reasonable to assume that he gave them laws too? All cultures would then originate from the root source of laws; god

So you're saying the god gave the other cultures the same moral laws but completely different myths? Except that your favorite myth --coincidentally -- is not a myth but really real?

I don't believe you.

Plus, what you're doing is adding arbitrary ad-hoc suppositions in order to make your position impossible to examine.

So lets see. Chimps have altruistic behaviors. They will, for instance, refuse their own treats if they see an unfair distribution of them. Basically the chimp decides it's not going to play the game if it's rigged. Did a god tell them to be altruistic in chimp-speak? Is there a chimp-bible out there somewhere?

We get out morals from the same place the chimps do. We evolved it. Different cultures express morals in different ways, but the basis is hard-wired.

[Forsaken]

God only killed the "wicked" as displayed in many, many different bible stories.

Why create wicked in the 1st place?

[Cyberman]

"If there is a God..."

What a lot of faith you theists put in such a tiny word.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

If there is a god; than he predates everything that we have.

Your bible describes precisely how the world was created, who were the first humans, and all of their descendants.
Telling me that God predates the world when the bible doesn't acknowledge that that world existed does nothing to further your arguement.
There is a great deal of historical detail that we are aware of that predated the apparent 6000 years or so of the earth's entire existence, so your arguement is flawed right from the very beginning.

You say that you use society's judgment to call your own morality "good." Is that to say that morality differs between societies? That a society that endorsed baby-rape would be morally okay as long as it was acceptable within their society?[/b]

I said that I use my own moral guide, not society's, though they often coincide with one another but ultimately I dictate my own morals.
But yes, that is to say that what is "moral" in one society is different from another society.
That is kind of my point because the bible's morality is different from America's morality or even modern christian morality since even those fuckwits are not rapists, slave owners (nor do they condone slavery), paedophiles, or murderers. We don't ascribe to the 'eye for an eye' style of justisce but instead attempt to do what's fair to all parties and punish wrongdoers.
Compare to this to Afghanistan where a woman who was raped by a man is forced to marry her rapist despite being a victim or the morals of the Westboro Baptist Church, which advocates the admonishment (putting it lightly) of gays for the simple reason that they are homosexual.

The morals among all of those individuals is not equal, based upon the same foundational principles, or is equally fair or just. This is true even among different christian denominations - baptist, methodlist, evangelicals, mormon, catholic, and so forth and even those are wildly different than what is literally word-for-word condoned or at leats not admonished in the bible itself, the book of mormon, the quoran, or any of those assinine holy books.

What I am saying is that there are few, if any common morals among all humans and the few that might qualify (don't kill or steal) not only existed before christianity, but exist in people independant of faith.

There is evidence that the story of Noah did not kill everyone on earth, but just within a certain area.

There is no evidence that the story of Noah happened at all.
God still committed genocide against the human race in that story because he didn't like who was fornicating with who.

Please cite your scripture.

There is a lot more to the story of noah that I could use to emphasize my point, but I don't have the time or energy to commit to that endevor, but I will attempt an abbreviated version.

On the eugenics:
Genesis Chapter 6 practically in its entirety describes how god decided to kill all humans because the 'sons of god' and giants had chosen to intermingle with human women. It was essentially the first thing that happened and then god saw humanity as being corrupt.
It states that only Noah and his three sons (and all of their wives) would be spared.

On the genocide:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Note that he said he would destroy basically everything he made, save for Noah and the beasts he hand-picks from the world to travel with him on his stupid boat.
So, either the bible is wrong (and therefore god is wrong), or your 'evidence' that the flood happened only in a particular area of the world is wrong.

Though I would personally say that neither is true, but what do I know?

I will give you some that involves the subject of rape...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 only applies to unwed virgins and the rapist is "punished" with a fine and is forced to marry the victim.
Let me repeat that: The VICTIM is forced to marry her rapist. Where is her rights in this, exactly? I would love for you to talk to someone who was brutally raped and tell her that if she wants to get into heaven, she has to do the biblical thing and marry her rapist, assuming she even knows who he was.

Yeah, that's justice for the victim all right. It's justice for the shame brought upon her father, to whom the rapist must make reparations.

Deuteronomy 22:25-28 - you might notice that this rule only applies to betrothed women who cried out and were caught in the act. THEN and ONLY THEN is the man punished with anything significant.
I love how you left out the part where if she doesn't (or CAN"T cry out) and they're in the city, then SHE is punished with DEATH.

Galatians 5:19-21 (English Standard Version) - I have two bibles and two online bibles that I regularly use and they use the term "Adultery" instead of "sexual immorality" but given that "rape" isn't described as 'sexual immorality' elsewhere in the bible, I'm inclined to believe that the intended meaning confers with (as opposed to retcons) all of its previous statements regarding human sexuality, which is to mean that I would believe that the quote condemns adultery instead of rape considering that in the OT it is only punishable at all because it shames the male members of the victim's family and given that adultery would actually violate a commandment.
Even so, the term used in your quote is vague enough to be defined by whatever morals regarding human sexuality that you have as opposed to the morals the bible has, which is to say, that it punishes adultery but not rape.

So... basically, I think I've proven that I know your own book better than you do.

Where does he not follow this?

God impregnated a married 14 year old woman with his son, Jesus.

In the society that you live in, where life, love, liberty (all of which displayed in the bible) are considered morally okay, I suppose this would make you a morally correct person.

America's capitalist society is based entirely around greed, envy, and lust.
People have sex before marriage all the time and it is not considered socially unacceptable.
Slavery is abolished, rape is a punishable crime because of the damage it does to the victim (as opposed to her male family), homosexuality isn't punished at all, there are non-christians and even atheists who also live and die in America without punishment (those 'false idols"), nearly everyone on the planet loves their family more than god and/or Jesus, and so forth.

Not one of those things is morally acceptable in the bible.

Human morals aren't dictated by god. He gave us the rules; its our prerogative to follow them or not.

Two things:
1) You and every other theist ever then can no longer claim that humans must derieve their morals from god if this is the case.
2) It's not even really a choice if the "wrong one" results in TORTURE FOREVER. It's a choice in the same way that "pay the mobster 15,000$ or the mob kills your entire family and breaks your legs" is a choice.

We all deserve hell. Both you and I. It's through Jesus Christ that we are allowed exception.

I was born into this world despite the fact that I had not chosen to do so.
In your twisted, sick logic, I deserve to be tortured in the fires of hell for being born even before all of the choices that I have made between being born and now.
You worship a sick, sadistic monster and your christian values teaches you that human beings are completely worthless without devoting your love and life to a genocidal monster or his zombie son who enjoyed a pointless existence in which he died because of retarded rules his father placed on humanity.

Never tell me or anyone again that a universe without god means we don't have morals because the view that all humans deserve to be punished for being born is worse than any view of humanity than I can imagine.

On a seporate note, in the future, stop putting everything you type in bold.