Apologists like to claim that god is good. When atheists point out the evil deeds that god commits in the Bible, apologists like to state that we are not in a position to judge god since god is too far beyond us.
Anyone else see the contradiction?
Apologists can not simultaneously argue that we can not judge god while also arguing that they can and have judged god and found him to be good. This is contradictory and illogical. Either they have to say that we can judge god and they find god to be good, but that the question is open, or they must claim that god is above judgement and that they can't say whether god is good or not.
20 comments:
well omgf, I am "Roman Catholic", have you ever wondered why there are so few educated theists posting on ebon's website "daylight atheism"..I will tell you, you seem very bright and I thought we were having a tough but fair debate, dont you? I htink you made hightlky intelligent poosts and I think we were having an excellent dialogue.Ebon seems to want a packaged , sterile, atheist product devoid of any contrarian views. What debating fun is that, omgf?
omgf, hopefully you answer your own blog.Ebon only bans me when he is losing. As a test I have posted literally about two dozen pro atheist posts just to see what he would do, and guess what, he posted all of them ,even some I deliberately made inane, off topic, etc etc..what does that tell you omgf? C-E-N-S-O_R_S-H_I-P
WTF. Its as if the two preceding comments were randomly pulled from two randomly chosen buttholes.
well, no ,the buttholes werent exactly "random". OMGF, if he exists on his onw blog, knows full well that ebon censors anybody that is getting the best of him in a debate. I am "Roman Catholic" and omgf and I were having an excellent debate until that balless testicular challenged ebon decided to ban me-again. Stalin put people in"insitutions" to silence them. I suppose that is ebon's method too.
"OMGF"
Firstly, it's OMFG
"knows full well that ebon censors anybody that is getting the best of him in a debate."
So deal with him on his blog and don't bring your stupid shit over here.
Roman Catholic, you wouldn't happen to be the reincarnation of "Theist scientist" would you?
If you have a problem with Ebon, I suggest you take it up with him, but it did not seem to me that Ebon was losing anything.
Oh, and to the other anonymous, there is a poster named OMGF.
"Either they have to say that we can judge god and they find god to be good,"
You believe you can judge God?...
Well...at least you do believe that He exists...that is a good start.
Sorry I am late to jump in on this post...
I could see how anyone, even myself could see this as a contradiction without having prior knowledge of many things involved with making this argument.
"God is Good" ....as you heard my voice the first time on your site on your last post I had a similar view but, I would like to hear you define this statement: "God is Good", then I will attempt to, and maybe anyone else who would like to take a shot. I don't even think I have to hear the difference between you and I to know that evey definition would be insanely different. Would you agree?
It would be more accurate to say that God is God. We are trying to put a human concept and understaning (as simple as it may seem) into something that is beyond human understanding. Is it fair to describe something that we really know nothing about?
A contradiction could be assumed here, but we need to understand that we are using different premises for the concept of good.
I like your thoughts GCT...thanks for the food for thought.
Also GTC,
I was looking at past postings and saw that you had used the term "Xian" a few times and I was assuming that by this you meant Christian? Correct me if I am wrong. There were other uses or definitions for the word that I saw but did not see how they would fit....sorry for the randomness of this question, or if there was a better place to post it.
Jaybird,
"You believe you can judge God?..."
Do you really not understand the straight-forward argument I put forth? I don't need to judge god for the purposes of this argument, nor are my beliefs relevant. What's relevant is whether YOU think YOU can judge god. If you answer "No" to that question, then you also can't claim that god is good.
"Well...at least you do believe that He exists...that is a good start."
Again, it's a pretty straight-forward argument pointing out the contradictions in YOUR belief system. I don't need to believe in your god to point out the problems with YOUR belief system.
im_black,
""God is Good" ....as you heard my voice the first time on your site on your last post I had a similar view but, I would like to hear you define this statement: "God is Good", then I will attempt to, and maybe anyone else who would like to take a shot. I don't even think I have to hear the difference between you and I to know that evey definition would be insanely different. Would you agree?"
No, I don't agree. I think there would be lots of similarities amongst many aspects of "good" were we all to define it. Nevertheless, it is not relevant. For one to claim that god is good, regardless of what they mean by good, they are making a judgement of the actions and nature of god. When I point out the evils produced by god like genocide and torture, the usual retort is that we can not judge god. Well, the apologist can't have it both ways.
"We are trying to put a human concept and understaning (as simple as it may seem) into something that is beyond human understanding. Is it fair to describe something that we really know nothing about?"
Again, I disagree that we have no concept or understanding of morality. We don't need to be infinitely knowledgeable in order to judge the morality of actions undertaken by god.
"I was looking at past postings and saw that you had used the term "Xian" a few times and I was assuming that by this you meant Christian?"
Yes, that's what is meant, just like how people shorten to Xmas.
Lets explore this a bit further...
As you replied,
"When I point out the evils produced by god like genocide and torture, the usual retort is that we can not judge god. Well, the apologist can't have it both ways."
I would say this that genocide is justified in some situations. I think that we first have to understand motives before we can call something good or bad.
Hypathetical situation: crazy guy x thinks that gtc needs to die for no reason what so ever and has a gun to your head. IM_BLACK walks into the room and sees crazy guy x. I take out my gun and blow away crazy guy x. gtc is safe and does not have to die for the sake of nothing. Is this justified? Or should you be killed? I can tell you that if I am to walk in that room I will not hesitate to put a bullet in crazy guy x every time.
Terrorists, mass murders, rapists, people who do more harm than than help society....what should happen to these people? Should we let them continue what they are doing without punishment? If I am in a situation where I can stop something that does not need to happen than I will every time.
Do we need these crimnals in a society to function properly? If not then could we give them an option: stop....or we will kill you. God looks at each sin with equal value....ultimately it creates seperation from Him. Humans are naturally sinful creatures from birth. It is our curse and ultimately we all should perish. We have something to bridge the gap between our imperfection and the deserving death that should happen to me.
I think I rambled a bit there....sorry..
What does "crazy guy x" have to do with genocide? Are you asserting that there are entire nations, ethnicities, races, or political groups that are only filled with "crazy guy x" type people that all have a gun to my head? I'm not seeing a defense of genocide here.
"God looks at each sin with equal value....ultimately it creates seperation from Him."
Then god is morally inept. If he can't see the difference between jaywalking and murder, then do we really want to consider him to be the arbiter of morality?
"Humans are naturally sinful creatures from birth."
Is it your fault that you are sinful? No, of course not, you were born that way. Yet, god will punish you for being the way he created you!
"it's a pretty straight-forward argument pointing out the contradictions in YOUR belief system."
More like pointing out your misconceptions in MY belief system. You do not even have a basic understanding of the Bible...
"What's relevant is whether YOU think YOU can judge god."
Can't hold God and human to the same standard...one is perfect and infinite and the other is limited and finite. You believe you can judge Him because you've taken Scripture out of context, which you don't understand and called it evil.
"Apologists can not simultaneously argue that we can not judge god while also arguing that they can and have judged god and found him to be good."
We don't argue and judge that God is good, the Bible claims that He is, however the Bible doesn't claim He is evil...you do.
Punishing sin (transgression of His laws) is not evil, it is justice. We punish the lawbreakers...that's not evil.
You can't judge someone who hasn't broken the law, therefore God can't be judged.
Jaybird,
"More like pointing out your misconceptions in MY belief system. You do not even have a basic understanding of the Bible..."
You must be confused. I made an argument, you completely missed it and thought I was arguing something I wasn't. So, I called you out on it and now you are claiming this? This is simply bizarre, so let's start again. If you think my argument is in error, then point out the error. Simply saying, "You're wrong," without supporting it or giving a counter-argument doesn't do any good.
"Can't hold God and human to the same standard...one is perfect and infinite and the other is limited and finite. You believe you can judge Him because you've taken Scripture out of context, which you don't understand and called it evil."
What is out of context about the Noachian flood or the ordered genocides of the Amalekites or the Philistines? Further, your argument that god should be held to a different moral standard is a call to moral relativism, which is contrary to the Xian tenet of absolute morality. Your argument is self-defeating.
"We don't argue and judge that God is good, the Bible claims that He is, however the Bible doesn't claim He is evil...you do."
I never said that the Bible said god was evil, so nice attempt at a strawman. Accepting what the Bible says means that you have made a judgement of the goodness of god. If you didn't judge god to be good, then you would not accept what the Bible says. Therefore, you are claiming that we CAN judge god, and I judge that god is evil due to his injustice, tyranny, sadism, etc.
"Punishing sin (transgression of His laws) is not evil, it is justice. We punish the lawbreakers...that's not evil."
That's part of a different thread, so I won't argue it here, but the carrying out of god's "justice" is not just in the least. Further, all of our "sins" are really god's fault, so we are being punished for things we have no control over. Nevertheless, I was talking about the numerous genocides that god commits. If you can't argue the point, then you are simply blowing hot air.
"You can't judge someone who hasn't broken the law, therefore God can't be judged."
What is legal is not always what is moral, and vice versa. This is an elementary concept that you should know.
Jaybirds reappeared? I thought he bailed for good after his last failures. But it is great to see him back because his arguements and the ensuing responses really help me to release much of the indoctrination BS I fight against.
#1. The reports that God did this and God did that are false in their entirety.
#2. Any cursory research on ancient civilizations will enlighten you on the god-king relationship practiced. Before a king could go warring on another king, he had to have his god's permission, because the gods had an agreement that no one god starts beating up on another god's people without the agreement.
The Jews showed (or justified) their actions were in accordance with their God. Historical archeology does not support all of the wars and bloodshed that was supposedly committed.
#3. Again, the Old Testament stories are not newspaper events. They are not historical events. They are not a blotter that we can turn to in order to understand what was going on in history.
We have to have a clear understanding of how people viewed literature, nature, and the concept of God before we can even begin to understand what these Jewish writers were trying to say. Their readers had no problems understanding the meaning.
People simply were not dying by the thousands. Blood did not stain the ground. These were images--much like the CGI used in today's movies--to evoke feelings of fear, excitement, horror, and laughter.
#4. Israel had just fallen, and the intelligentsia moved to the agrarian nation of Judah. These leaders wanted to rise up from the ashes and retake Israel and grab even more land around Palestine.
They believed that one of the major reasons why Israel fell was because the people fell susceptible to idols and forgot the one True God. They set out to purge Judah of all other gods and set an example for the world that there is only one God.
They put there hopes in one kind, Josiah, and proclaimed him the Messiah that would restore the Jews to their percieved glory of David and Solomon.
And this all took place in the 8th Century bc (bce).
Wallis,
"#1. The reports that God did this and God did that are false in their entirety."
Good, so you admit that the Bible is false. We can all go home now.
"#2. Any cursory research on ancient civilizations will enlighten you on the god-king relationship practiced."
Hell, it's still happening.
"The Jews showed (or justified) their actions were in accordance with their God."
How? By winning/surviving?
"Historical archeology does not support all of the wars and bloodshed that was supposedly committed."
Of course it doesn't, because the Bible is inaccurate.
Wallis, is anything in here related to the OP or the discussion at hand? You seem to simply want to recount history, but I fail to see how this makes anything better, unless you are tossing out the Bible in order to save god. The problem with this, however, is that the Bible is the only purported evidence we have for your god, so tossing it out also tosses out any connection to this god (for people would not be able to mistake their "spiritual feelings" for this god if they had no knowledge of this god." Either way, the point still stands and you've done/said nothing to counter it. If you claim that we can't judge god, then we can't claim god is good. If we can judge god as good, we can similarly judge that god is not good. Which is it?
#1. I am not tossing out the Bible, and it is not the only purported evidence we have of God. I am merely stating that you cannot take the Bible, which is a collection of 66 books and thousands of stories within those books, as literal truth the same way that you pick up a newspaper and read current history.
The Bible is just one vehicle for man to attempt to describe God acting in his history. If we could include all of the writings over the last four millennia, we would see people from all walks of life, all cultures, all forms of thinking, etc. trying to describe God acting in life. It is an expounding on the old four blind men story when they tried to describe an elephant.
#2. We cannot judge God. Why not? Because we have very little clues as to what God is.
In a court of law, we can lay out the evidence. We can corrupt the evidence to sway the jury this way or that. We take the definition of “good” and twist it around to meet our criteria. There is no universal concept of “good” that meets every hypothesis or analysis.
In our extremely limited view of the universe—of the solar system—of the planet Earth—hell, we don’t even understand ourselves: we cannot define God as “good” or “bad” within our own individual spheres of existence.
We want justice in the world. When the courts do not legislate justice, according to our desired outcome, we cry foul. Similarly, when we blame God for not allowing something to happen the way we think it should happen, we call foul.
When we feel that God isn’t using our brains, we call foul.
And that is where we as humans are wrong. We don’t have all of the evidence. We don’t have a clue as to the big picture. And, we make poor judges to declare any judgment as whether God is “good” or “bad.”
In actuality, then: God is both “good” and “bad,” by human definition. I repeat another post: God is “good” because the way he set up the universe is the only game in town. And we can either play the game or not play the game. It is really up to us, and bitching about the rules we have to play within is not going to help.
Wallis,
"#1. I am not tossing out the Bible, and it is not the only purported evidence we have of God."
Really? What other purported evidence is there?
"I am merely stating that you cannot take the Bible, which is a collection of 66 books and thousands of stories within those books, as literal truth the same way that you pick up a newspaper and read current history."
I don't see why not, if it was truly authored by an omni-max deity.
"The Bible is just one vehicle for man to attempt to describe God acting in his history."
So, you are admitting the Bible is man-made? Then, what evidence is there for god doing anything?
"#2. We cannot judge God. Why not? Because we have very little clues as to what God is."
Then, you can't say that god is good.
"There is no universal concept of “good” that meets every hypothesis or analysis."
More moral relativity? That's not very Xian of you.
"In our extremely limited view of the universe—of the solar system—of the planet Earth—hell, we don’t even understand ourselves: we cannot define God as “good” or “bad” within our own individual spheres of existence."
Then you agree with me that if we can't judge god we similarly can't say that god is good. Thank you for that. Will you please point out to your fellow Xians that they are contradicting themselves when they make the argument I outlined?
"When we feel that God isn’t using our brains, we call foul."
No, when we see god acting in unjust ways, I call foul.
"In actuality, then: God is both “good” and “bad,” by human definition. I repeat another post: God is “good” because the way he set up the universe is the only game in town. And we can either play the game or not play the game. It is really up to us, and bitching about the rules we have to play within is not going to help."
Really? god sets up rules whereby you get to live for a while and then you suffer eternal torment after you die and you claim this makes him good? This is right after you claim he's good and bad and that we can't say he's good or bad? Make up your mind will ya? The point is this. If you can't judge god as being good or bad, why worship it? Only a good god would be worthy of worship, yet you have no idea if this god exists or if this god is good. So, it makes no rational sense to worship such an abstract idea.
Post a Comment