Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality

[Chas]

I'm not sure one can judge another better or worse, they just are.

One standard is unchanging, because God is unchanging. The other changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation to suit the wants and will of popular culture.

It only then becomes better or worse depending on which side of eternity you wish to stand on.

You are an idiot.
Slavery was moral to Christians in the U.S. until it wasn't.
Gay clergy was immoral to Christians in the U.S. until it wasn't.
and so on.

[Esquilax]

Ahh, but children can't "die" they just return to God. which is why Jesus refereed to a dead Girl one tame as "asleep" to which the Bible says the "people laughed him to scorn" because they didn't know what he meant.

Wow, that gives me like fifty eight methods of attack.

First of all, I expect you'll never again use free will as an excuse for god's actions, since you've just accepted and endorsed the fact that god violated the free will of these children when it was convenient to him. Secondly, you're apparently okay with god requiring that these babies be violently murdered, rather than just letting them pass away in their sleep before the attack. Speaking of which, why would god bother to let all those babies be born anyway, if he was just going to kill them so early in their lives? Did he just really need to see some babies being gutted? That's pretty sick.

Hey, couldn't god have instead had those kids adopted out into the families of his followers, so they could have led rich lives helping people on earth, instead of just being... you know, pointlessly slaughtered?

What I find particularly telling about this is that you give no thought at all to the needless infliction of mortal injury on babies. Regardless of whether they went to heaven or not- and I think this is just a dodge on your part- the act of killing a baby is still deeply immoral and disturbing, yet you're apparently okay with it, or pretending you are, to win rhetorical points. The inhumanity of christianity shows again.

[Exian]

Can you be more specific? There is no such things as "atheist morality". Or "theist morality" for that matter.

---

I'm not sure one can judge another better or worse, they just are.

One standard is unchanging, because God is unchanging. The other changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation to suit the wants and will of popular culture.

It only then becomes better or worse depending on which side of eternity you wish to stand on.

So, god(s) doesn't change from culture to culture to suit the wants and will of the people?

[abaris]

Ahh, but children can't "die" they just return to God. which is why Jesus refereed to a dead Girl one tame as "asleep" to which the Bible says the "people laughed him to scorn" because they didn't know what he meant.

Are we talking about some Skyrim scenario, where children can't be killed? Or are we talking about being OK with children being killed, since they go to sky daddy anyway?

Anyway, you dodged the gory abortion part of the quote. The terminal kind, both for the unborn and the mother.

[Huggy Bear]

Ok, so pick the one you think is the worst and I'll address that one in depth, a short answer will not do any of those justice.

Hosea 13:16: The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

Can't wait for your explanation. Especially about the dashed little ones and the belly ripping.

This is what is called a prophecy, If you read the chapter in context then it's made clear.

What God is saying is that because of the Hebrews rebellion, he will no longer protect them. Around 25 years later, Samaria is invaded by Assyria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria

In 726-722 BC, the new king of Assyria, Shalmaneser V, invaded Canaan and besieged the city of Samaria. After an assault of three years, the city fell and much of its population was taken into captivity and deported.[12] Little documentation exists for the period between the fall of Samaria and the end of the Assyrian Empire.

The prophecy is about the atrocities the Assyrians commit.
How you figure God is doing this is beyond me.

[genkaus]

I'm not sure one can judge another better or worse, they just are.

One standard is unchanging, because God is unchanging. The other changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation to suit the wants and will of popular culture.

It only then becomes better or worse depending on which side of eternity you wish to stand on.

You are confusing god's morality with theistic morality.

Theistic morality would be an umbrella term covering all moral systems proposed on the basis of belief in god and since there are many different variations of that, there is no singular theistic morality that one can point to and judge.

You god's morality would be a standard proposed by your god ans since your god is imaginary, so is his morality.

Biblical morality would be one form of theistic morality, but since its open to interpretation and/or extremely damaging when practiced literally, it is clearly worse.

[Huggy Bear]

Ahh, but children can't "die" they just return to God. which is why Jesus refereed to a dead Girl one tame as "asleep" to which the Bible says the "people laughed him to scorn" because they didn't know what he meant.

Wow, that gives me like fifty eight methods of attack.

First of all, I expect you'll never again use free will as an excuse for god's actions, since you've just accepted and endorsed the fact that god violated the free will of these children when it was convenient to him. Secondly, you're apparently okay with god requiring that these babies be violently murdered, rather than just letting them pass away in their sleep before the attack. Speaking of which, why would god bother to let all those babies be born anyway, if he was just going to kill them so early in their lives? Did he just really need to see some babies being gutted? That's pretty sick.

Hey, couldn't god have instead had those kids adopted out into the families of his followers, so they could have led rich lives helping people on earth, instead of just being... you know, pointlessly slaughtered?

What I find particularly telling about this is that you give no thought at all to the needless infliction of mortal injury on babies. Regardless of whether they went to heaven or not- and I think this is just a dodge on your part- the act of killing a baby is still deeply immoral and disturbing, yet you're apparently okay with it, or pretending you are, to win rhetorical points. The inhumanity of christianity shows again.

The problem is, you see things from such a narrow point of view. When a child is born into the world, there is suffering for both mother and child, not to mention bloody, yet do we say this is a terrible thing? no. when a child is born it is a joyous occasion, and the suffering is no longer remembered.

Psalm 116:15
Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

like wise for those that return to God, it is a joyous occasion in heaven. Death is simply a transition from one place to another, is suffering sometimes involved? sure, but suffering is involved during birth, but that moment of suffering will no longer be remember once you step into eternity.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Wow, that gives me like fifty eight methods of attack.

First of all, I expect you'll never again use free will as an excuse for god's actions, since you've just accepted and endorsed the fact that god violated the free will of these children when it was convenient to him. Secondly, you're apparently okay with god requiring that these babies be violently murdered, rather than just letting them pass away in their sleep before the attack. Speaking of which, why would god bother to let all those babies be born anyway, if he was just going to kill them so early in their lives? Did he just really need to see some babies being gutted? That's pretty sick.

Hey, couldn't god have instead had those kids adopted out into the families of his followers, so they could have led rich lives helping people on earth, instead of just being... you know, pointlessly slaughtered?

What I find particularly telling about this is that you give no thought at all to the needless infliction of mortal injury on babies. Regardless of whether they went to heaven or not- and I think this is just a dodge on your part- the act of killing a baby is still deeply immoral and disturbing, yet you're apparently okay with it, or pretending you are, to win rhetorical points. The inhumanity of christianity shows again.

The problem is, you see things from such a narrow point of view.

Yes, naturally. It's always our problem when you guys can't get your story straight.

like wise for those that return to God, it is a joyous occasion in heaven. Death is simply a transition from one place to another, is suffering sometimes involved? sure, but suffering is involved during birth, but that moment of suffering will no longer be remember once you step into eternity.

'If I keep saying it maybe they'll just believe me?'

[Brian37]

1. atheist morality
why is it better than theist morality.

2. theist morality
why is it better than atheist morality.

I hate this argument. You can argue that without the distortion of religion, you can have a naturalistic view of human behavior. But I do not like even atheists going around claiming their morality is superior.

I know of atheists I do not find moral and would not want in public office. I know greedy atheists.

"Atheist" only addresses the "off" position on claims of a god or gods. It does not address our personal desires, or class, or economic views. We are not a separate species no matter what our label is.

[Cato]

There is no single 'atheist morality', nor is there any single 'biblical morality'; making the ethical query in the OP all very confused. As has already happened, bad moral actors (God and Hitler) are immediately invoked in an effort to demonize non-existent moral codes by association.

The ubiquitous references to Hitler in these types of discussions are distractions. Hitler's belief or non-belief in God is immaterial, because Hitler's actions are universally accepted as immoral regardless of someone's religious affiliation; notwithstanding the existence of Mel Gibson and Islamacists.

Charges that Christians are immoral because the OT God was a prick are very superficial. Most Christians don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't have data to support this, but I imagine this is at least partially due to the fact that some believers can't reconcile some Biblical tales with their sense of morality and the idea of a just, loving and merciful God. Claims that someone can't be moral without a universal law giver are equally preposterous. When it comes to ethical debate, I put moral nihilists and literal Biblical apologists on the same psychopathic tendencies watchlist.

I just wish people would quit ignoring that meaningful ethical debate has been raging for thousands of years and that it is far more sophisticated than god/no-god. Virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism don't necessarily require a god, but they also don't prohibit the idea of a god in order to be meaningful and practical systems of moral guidance.