Maher is wrong? God didn't flood the world, killing everyone? The God of the old testament is a major asshole, both vindictive and cruel. Jesus is described as a much more sympathetic guy, but OT God? He's a dick. No question about it.
This is purely an emotional argument, not an intellectual one.
Giving it perspective. That just doesn't seem miraculous to me. Parting the Red Sea, that is miraculous. Praying for an amputated limb to regrow, quite possibly miraculous. A back tax bill getting reduced from $12k to $1.5k doesn't strike me as miraculous.
You can believe what you will and reduce it to getting a bill reduced....
That's what atheists do...when they cannot logically or scientifically explain away something they resort to making fun of or they resort to such nonsense as why didn`t God cure the kid with leukemia....
Yet even if I had it in writing from all these experts retired and working for the IRS/government you all would still resort to down playing what truly was something that had never happened in the manner that it happened including all the events leading up to....
We all have had bills reduced.....yet what took place between this person who was not rich by any stretch of the imagination and owed quite a bit in back taxes through no fault of her own......its not your business whose fault it was......she still owed the money and for almost all of it to be written off through various things happening.....
Sorry I will take my God any day over your Atheist talking points and buffoonery and just sheer stoopidity......
Atheists claim they talk to Christians because they want to understand..
that is not true at all!! They talk with Christians because something is lacking in their lives
so they decide make fun of other peoples spirituality or beliefs!!
But your response was expected and just supports what I have been saying about Atheists in general....
And who's the authority on the character of God? You? Maher? This is simply a subjective critique, laced with emotion, suspending intellect.
Stop making this an emotional debate, please.
Atheists have made a career out of emotional objections to the existence of God, from Darwin's "problem of evil", to Hitchen's "unspeakable horrors".
Where's your rationality, and intellectual objections?
So eradicating all animal life on the planet (except for the two of each Moses put on his ark) is not really murder?
I don't need to be an authority of God's character, I just take stuff from the Bible. God sent a flood with the purpose of killing, that's mass murder.
The 5th commandment is "You shall not murder".
How is this an emotional argument? It's not my story and it's not my God (I don't have one). It's your (Christians) story and your God.
Did God not torment Job, just to prove a point to Satan?
It's your stories and your God. Counter the argument that the God of the OT is not cruel, vindictive and murderous.
1. Firstly, "Moses" wasn't part of the Ark story...it was Noah. I'm really questioning if you even know about the story outside of what you've heard.
2. Why was the killing of those people "unjust"?
You're conflating "murder" and "killing"...as most people do when citing the Ten Commandments. Murder is the unlawful taking of life, killing is the lawful taking of life. God said the hearts of men were "bad all the time" making his actions just from his standpoint. Again, why is it unjust?
3. Well, why are you concerned about it then?
4. God did not torment Job....Satan did. Read the account. God allowed Satan to do what he wanted, aside from killing Job, to prove Satan wrong about Job's motives for worshipping God.
Satan said Job only worshipped God because of the blessings he was getting, not out of love. God said, "fine...do what you will to him aside from killing him" so Satan can be proved a liar. In end, Job stayed with God, and had more than what Satan took from him as a result. Please, read the Bible account.
You are extremely ill-informed or outright lied to about that Bible account. .
5. I don't have to, because you're going to believe what you want. All you care about is your emotional assessment of God because of how you view his actions in the Bible. That isn't logical, nor intellectual.
1. Wrong name, no big deal.
2. God does not, today, kill people who have a "bad heart", does he?
Thousands of rapists and murderers live to the end of their natural lives committing crimes. Even is all of mankind were kinda dickish, that doesn't really explain why he had to murder (note murder, not killing) all the animals.
Why not just send a plague that only affected man? I mean, he is God, he should be able to be a bit less blunt than flooding the entire world.
It's the same thing as if I push you in front of a truck. God protected Job from Satan's work. God wanted to prove a point and let Satan torment Job
That God "rewarded" Job after letting Satan punish him to prove a point does not matter. God could've told Satan "I don't care what you think because I am God and you are not.".
Don't respond to my posts in the future unless you're willing to have a discussion. I will do the same.
You're conflating "murder" and "killing"...as most people do when citing the Ten Commandments. Murder is the unlawful taking of life, killing is the lawful taking of life. God said the hearts of men were "bad all the time" making his actions just from his standpoint. Again, why is it unjust?
1. It throws your credibility into question.
2. No, he doesn't. One thing that needs to be understood, is that Jesus died in part for a future judgment at Armageddon, according to the Bible as "coming on the clouds". So there is no reason for God to kill people nowadays when a future date has been set by Him.
3. You cannot "murder" an animal. That only applies to killing humans, or we'd be spending our lives in prison to stomping a spider that's in our home.
4. All conjecture and misplaced emotion.
5. So instead of acknowledging you were wrong about God doing the tormenting, you're attempting to justify your error.
6. God could have killed Satan, but didn't. What you think should have happened doesn't change what happened, nor does it alter the truth of the matter.
7. I like how atheists get so angry because God decided to something differently then they would do, or what they think God should have done.
Emotion is trumping logic. Sad.
1. Not really, no.
2. A reason would be to not let bad men continue to cause his beloved children pain and suffering. If he's capable of killing almost all of humanity in a flood then, why not strike down murderers with a lightning bolt now?
3. That's murder in a legal sense. I think we can all agree that killing animals for no reason is immoral.
Anyways, you didn't really comment on why God sent a flood and not a disease. Red herring.
6. The truth being that God willfully let Satan torment Job to prove a point.
7. Not even slightly, but I'm all too familiar with religious people trying to get out of having to explain their faith by calling the atheist angry or emotional. Red herring.
I don't know how else to explain it. It basically boils down to this:The question of why is still unanswered. Why should we insert God into the argument? We can, but why? We have absolutely no proof a the existence of a deity, much less a personal one like the religions of Abraham claims. Even if we remove all the religious nonsense and end up with a deity that only created the universe and then let it be, we'd still lack proof of it's existence. The only reason people feel the need to do so is because they have religious belief. Someone who isn't religious don't settle for an unknown as the answer.
We don't know how the universe came into existence. But saying "God" is the answer to every difficult question is the lazy way to go. "God" is arbitrary. "God" is unexplainable, unprovable. Inserting God into the equation is unscientific.
I don't know how else to explain it. It basically boils down to this:
"If you do not consider every possibility with equal consideration, then you are being biased towards your own opinion"
I gave the reasons for why in my previous posts. Unless there's something specific in my posts you disagree with, then I think we've come to a stalemate.
Good discussion though! I enjoyed it.
"If you do not consider every possibility with equal consideration, then you are being biased towards your own opinion"
Good discussion though! I enjoyed it.
1. I don't know why God doesn't "strike down murderers", but what I do believe is that he has a future time when it will be done. If that's not good enough for you, then so be it.
2. If God does exists and if what I believe is true, then it doesn't matter to him how humans feel as regards his timetable as he obviously sees things differently than we do.
3. But see, this is why emotion has to be removed when discussing this subject, because most non-believers go right to human suffering as a reason to reject a God. Perhaps they don't understand why humans are suffering, or why God hasn't acted, but rejecting intellect in favor of anger toward God doesn't help anyone at all.
4. I believe this as well, but hunters do the same as they only kill for sport. If you are a hunter and/or agree with hunting, you can't speak to God killing animals.
5. I don't know why God didn't send a disease. I don't see why it matters.
6. Yes, to prove the point that people don't worship God for blessings only, which was Satan's assertions. You can view that however you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
7. Because many of you are. The primary objection to the existence of God is suffering, and they get really upset because they claim a "loving God wouldn't allow humans to suffer". This is a completely emotional rationalization.
8. The atheists who don't use that reason are the ones who are scientists, or those interested in scientific reasons for rejecting a god/gods.
that`s fair!Of course I can't prove it. I'm not the one making claims, though. I say that I don't and probably can't truly know what lies beyond, where our universe came from, etc. But I'm not the one claiming to know, christians are. I don't understand what differentiates christianity from any other religion or story with incredible claims, so I guess I have a hard time buying into it or understanding how others can hold on to it when I feel like you have to change the standards you would use to judge such stories to believe in it.
I'm not trying to argue with you, but giving you my agnostic/atheist (whatever you want to call it) perspective.
__________________
1. I don't see how God could justify a serial rapist destroying the lives of many by him getting punished for all eternity. Why not just kill the rapist and then punish him for all eternity?
2. Clearly you worship a God who don't have a particularly big issue with rapists and murderers.
3. Most non-believers go to the lack of evidence of a God to reject the idea. Having a, supposedly, loving and all-powerful God letting extremely bad things happen to good, innocent people is just a bonus.
4. A lot of hunting is for food or to keep the population in check. Hunting only for sport is very rare and really not a very moral activity.
5. It goes back to my original argument of God being an asshole. If it was only man God was angry at, why kill almost all life on the entire planet? An all-powerful, all-knowing deity wouldn't have to kill everything. He could've just killed man, which was the objective. I'd like to know the answer to jackstar7's question too.
6. And that really makes God a dick. He let Job suffer. Not because he had to but because he wanted to prove a point to Satan.
7. The morals of God is one issue, the existence (or non-existence) of God is another. You can be a scientist interested in evidence for or against God's existence and still question the morals displaced in the OT. They are separate.
Your (as in, Christians) problem is that you have a God that is, supposedly, kind, loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. Still you have a holy book (the OT) that depicts an angry and vengeful God. This is, of course, not a scientific discussion.
Hopefully I can offer perspective to clear up the whole atheism thing, as I consider myself an atheist.
Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists, I find atheism exactly the belief that no deity exists. But I don't make the assumption no deity can exist only that absent empirical evidence I hold the position that no deity exists. Should a time ever come where empirical evidence of God existing came to be, I would be happy to change my position and believe it exists.
I used to be one of those religious bashing atheists too, but as part of my own spiritual journey I came to appreciate that ever single person on this planet in one way or another is trying to reconcile existence to a degree who am I to piss on someones else s path to happiness?
I only have issues with religious groups who attempt to spread the word when its unwelcome and or try to curry favor in matters of public policy.
We all have beliefs when they are not doing others harm there really isn't any issue with beliefs.
well said. the only part i disagree with is the public policy part. all people have a right to free speech. so advocating for a position is their right. just as it is yours or mine to disagree.
agreed!I agree as well, the distinction is when you use your beliefs to change public policy I can no longer be passive and need to voice my objection.
You're conflating "murder" and "killing"...as most people do when citing the Ten Commandments. Murder is the unlawful taking of life, killing is the lawful taking of life. God said the hearts of men were "bad all the time" making his actions just from his standpoint. Again, why is it unjust?
No, he doesn't. One thing that needs to be understood, is that Jesus died in part for a future judgment at Armageddon, according to the Bible as "coming on the clouds". So there is no reason for God to kill people nowadays when a future date has been set by Him.
God did not torment Job....Satan did. Read the account. God allowed Satan to do what he wanted, aside from killing Job, to prove Satan wrong about Job's motives for worshipping God.