Tag Archives: New Testament

The Death of Christian Apologetics

·

Many Christian apologists try to give the impression that slavery was upheld in the Old Testament only. The fact is, it was also upheld – by none other than Jesus himself – in the New Testament. It’s gospel! Here’s the verse (Luke 12:47 – 48) . . .

Beat slaves who did wrong with many stripes, unless they knew not their wrong, then few stripes.

. . . Paul and Peter also upheld slavery in the New Testament. Come to think of it, there’s not a single word against slavery in the entire Bible.

There’s all kinds of immoral acts condoned, upheld or even encouraged in the Bible: bloodlust, incest, genocide, vengeance, battlefield atrocities, slavery, etc. But, as far as I know, human subjugation (slavery and male dominance over women) is the only one endorsed by BOTH the Old and New Testaments. This fact is important because it preempts the old apologist cop out: “That was the old covenant of the Old Testament but Jesus changed things with his new covenant of the New Testament”. They can discount the Old Testament all they want but slavery is also upheld in the New Testament by the ultimate authority: Jesus himself . . . God in the flesh.

Apologists are persistent, so next they’ll likely attempt to claim the word, ‘slave’, is a mis-translation. But it’s not. The Greek word, ‘doulos’, plainly means slave and is used unambiguously in the Bible. Some translations of the Bible soften the word into ‘servant’ but that’s an intentional attempt to mask an obvious weakness.

Once you shoot down that lame claim, you’re likely to be told slavery was kinder and gentler back in the Biblical era. The other day, one such apologist claimed slaves were better treated because their masters knew that, by law, they had to manumit their slaves after 7 years (some experts claim it was actually 6 years) . . . and this foreknowledge “tempered the master’s temper”. However, that claim was a conscious, calculated, misrepresentation. The fact is: only indentured Jewish MALE slaves – Hebrew MEN who sold themselves into bondage because of extreme poverty or debt – had to be manumitted. But non-Jewish slaves (mostly Canaanites) were chattel for life and could be passed from generation to generation through inheritance. And guess what? Females sold into slavery by their families – even if they were Jews – were slaves for life! That’s right, Hebrew male slaves get manumitted after 7 years . . . but Hebrew female slaves were chattel slaves for life. The human subjugation double-whammy, in the Bible, is reserved for women.

The bottom line is that real slaves (not the indentured, Jewish, MALE, slaves) were property for life and could be whipped or raped at the discretion of his/her master. Chattel slavery is chattel slavery: human subjugation is not kind or gentle. Or moral.

Some will claim that, when Jesus spoke (in Luke 12:47 – 48) about beating slaves, he was telling a parable. That’s not true. He wasn’t telling a parable – he was explaining one (Luke 12:35 – 40): clarifying a point about responsibility and accountability. But even if he was . . . parables take commonplace ideas to convey, by comparison or analogy, deeper ideas. So, if Jesus used the beating of slaves to convey lessons about responsibility and accountability . . . what does that say about his concern for slavery? It says he doesn’t give it a second thought! It’s a natural part of the order of things as far as Jesus is concerned.

The final, desperate, maneuver of the Christian apologist is to claim the “culture” or “prevailing attitudes” were different in the Biblical era. And that is the final nail in the coffin of the hapless apologist. By suggesting slavery is morally relative – justified by prevailing attitudes – one is admitting the immutable word of God is subjective, not objective, and not immutable or perfect or moral after all. Besides, God had always upheld slavery . . . nobody needed “prevailing attitudes” to make it okay.

Apologists can’t have it both ways. Either God’s word is immutable or it’s not. Either God is good and perfect, or he’s not. Either God is the source and final arbiter of morality or he’s not. Either the holy Bible is true and the divinely inspired word of God or it’s not.

And if God and the Bible are moral, true and perfect, then so is the slavery they uphold. But we know better. Don’t we? Slavery can no longer be upheld. We’ve grown beyond that. There’s no way in hell we will ever re-normalize slavery in order to align mankind’s morality with God’s. That slave ship has sailed. It’s over.

This fact puts slavery out of reach of Christian apologetics. Anybody can see – unless they refuse to – that if God’s morality grows outdated, it was never true or perfect to begin with. Clearly, God’s word is not the objective truth. In fact, God stands corrected by us ALL: believers and nonbelievers alike. If we must overrule God, we’re better off without him.

The single issue of slavery is all it takes to prove God is not moral, timeless or perfect – and neither is his split-personality scripture. If the allegedly omniscient, omnipotent, God or his scripture can’t stand the test of time, they’re frauds.

P.S.
Of course, all this presumes the Biblical God exists in the first place.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Join the Forum discussion on this post

Advertisements

Why Harris Lost His Debate With Craig

I just stumbled upon a year-old YouTube video named, “Sam Harris gets destroyed by Dr. William Lane Craig”. It’s the 2-hour University of Notre Dame debate held on April 7, 2011, between Harris and Craig. It was titled: “The God Debate II: Is Good from God?” The video can be found at the bottom of this page.

And guess what? Harris really was destroyed by Craig! What a disappointment.

Craig started off with the premise that objective morality can only exist if God exists and, alternatively, if God does not exist, objective morality can not exist.

Harris then presented his premise that science can identify objective morality by determining what contributes to the well being of conscious creatures.

Craig rebutted with a scholarly evisceration of Harris’ premise that cited: the absence of moral objectivity in atheism; the subjectivity of human flourishing; the is/ought distinction; and more.

As Harris walked up to the podium for his own rebuttal, I realized that he CAN’T rebut Craig because he agrees that there is an objective basis for morality: namely the application of science to the question of human flourishing (well being). And sure enough, Harris didn’t counter a single Craig rebuttal. Instead, he launched into his usual attack on the Bible and its morality.

In disgust, I stopped watching when Craig came back to the podium and rightly pointed out Harris’ lack of a rebuttal.

Harris was so invested in his flawed thesis that “science can solve moral problems” that he was blinded to the risk of agreeing that morality is objective. The fact is that Craig is right! Objective morality can only exist if God exists: if God does not exist, objective morality can not exist.

The atheist position should have been that objective morality can not exist because God does not exist. In other words, morality is subjective. But even if you were willing to entertain God’s existence, Craig is arguing divine command theory, which was dismissed centuries before Jesus came along, by Euthyphro’s Dilemma (“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”). Euthyphro’s Dilemma stemmed from a famous conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates that took place just before Socrates stood trial for impiety and corruption of minors . Surely, Harris is familiar with it. I have no idea why he wouldn’t use it.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma can be rephrased as: “Is an act moral because God wills it or does God will it because it is moral?” If it is moral because God wills it, then it is arbitrary or capricious: without basis in reason. Anything God commands, no matter how horrendous, would be moral. If you uphold the divinity of the Bible, then you are forced to accept that God’s will is arbitrary. But if God wills a thing because it is moral, then morality is independent of, and external to, God. If morality is independent of God, we don’t need God to have morals. Indeed, God is not omnipotent if he is constrained by an external morality.

But that’s an old argument. Thanks to advances in human understanding, particularly evolution, we have a perfectly human explanation for morality that does not require God at all. Because atheists do not believe in God and the supernatural realm, only the natural realm is left: the universe and everything in it. Nature has only a prime directive: survive. There is no good or bad, right or wrong, in nature. Morality is an entirely human construct and, as such, must be subjective – because humans can never be perfectly objective: as Craig points out, that would require a perfect God – an infallible authority.

As an atheist, Harris should have had a 2-pronged strategy: 1.) point out the lack of perfection in the biblical God and 2.) provide a naturalist understanding of morality; admitting up front that it is subjective and relative but, in the end, far superior to the flawed morality of an imperfect God.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma reveals the myth of God’s moral perfection so I won’t go into much detail on that count except to flesh out the slavery criticism because it’s upheld in the New Testament as well as the Old. This is important because Christians typically cop out by claiming fidelity only to the New Testament, since it represents a new covenant with God through Jesus.

I’ve recently written on the naturalist understanding of morality. If the following is familiar to you, just skip to the end.

The naturalist understanding of morality asserts that we have evolved empathy as an impetus to cooperation. Combined with personal experience, empathy leads most of us to a “Golden Rule” sense of morality. From experience, I know what hurts me: with empathy, I know the same things likely hurt you too. Experience and empathy is all we need to decide most moral matters. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . because we need each other to survive and prosper.” We are complex social animals, so this rule of thumb isn’t sufficient for every moral decision but it is fundamental to most. Without this impulse for cooperation to counter our impulse for violence, we would probably squander the intellectual prowess responsible for our survival advantage.

It’s a fallacy (with obvious religious motivations) that “we can not be moral without God”. Our morality is part of the human condition and existed long before Moses. Morality is not a dispensation from God: it is subjective and personal and, because it is informed by experience and empathy, develops as we mature. As a matter of fact, we ALL use our personal morality to overrule Biblical morality. And by ALL, I really do mean ALL: believers and nonbelievers alike. This fact is amply demonstrated by our universal rejection of slavery and the subjugation of women (well, maybe not the Muslims so much). Even though God/Jesus condoned the subjugation of our fellow humans in both the Old and New Testaments, we ALL overrule God’s morality with our own and reject such human subjugation. Not only is God NOT the source of morality but he stands corrected by us all. WE decided what is moral. WE decide what is religiously worthy. NOT God.

You need to ask yourself: “If we overrule God, why do we need him at all?”

This subjugation of our fellow humans is a failing of Biblical morality that can’t be reasonably addressed by apologetics. This is critical for all believers to understand. THEY CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either God is perfect or he’s not. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it’s not. Either God is the source of morality or he isn’t. Even a believer, if he’s honest with himself, must admit that if God’s morality grows outdated, it was never perfect and timeless to begin with. The alternative is to claim that God is right and that the subjugation of our fellow humans is NOT at all immoral – that it is, in fact, desirable. But we ALL know that’s an untenable position. We all know that is WRONG. We will not reverse our hard-earned moral progress to align it with God’s morality. This is why the issue is out of reach of apologetics.

The truth is that the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran reflect the morality and level of ignorance that existed in their respective eras and areas . . . precisely as they MUST if they’re written without the benefit of God’s input. These ancient tomes are NOT divinely inspired. God is NOT perfect. The issue of human subjugation proves that the personal, revealed, theist, God of the Abrahamic religions is irrefutably false. This doesn’t completely close the door on God, however: there’s still supernatural hope for the impersonal, cosmic, God of deists and pantheists.

Empathy is a human trait that spawns a number of other human traits just as naturally as it spawns morality. Empathy also spawns human dignity and worth, cooperation and compassion. We can live reasonably moral lives without God but not without empathy.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Slam Dunking God

The naturalist understanding of morality asserts that we have evolved empathy as an impetus to cooperation. Combined with personal experience, empathy leads most of us to a “Golden Rule” sense of morality. From experience, I know what hurts me: with empathy, I know the same things likely hurt you too. Experience and empathy is all we need to decide most moral matters. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . because we need each other to survive and prosper.” We are complex social animals, so this rule of thumb isn’t sufficient for every moral decision but it is fundamental to most. Without this impulse for cooperation to counter our impulse for violence, we would probably squander the intellectual prowess responsible for our survival advantage.

It’s a fallacy (with obvious religious motivations) that “we can not be moral without God”. Our morality is part of the human condition and existed long before Moses. Morality is not a dispensation from God: it is subjective and personal and, because it is informed by experience and empathy, develops as we mature. As a matter of fact, we ALL use our personal morality to overrule Biblical morality. And by ALL, I really do mean ALL: believers and nonbelievers alike. This fact is amply demonstrated by our universal rejection of slavery and the subjugation of women (well, maybe not the Muslims so much). Even though God/Jesus condoned the subjugation of our fellow humans in both the Old and New Testaments, we ALL overrule God’s morality with our own and reject such human subjugation. Not only is God NOT the source of morality but he stands corrected by us all. WE decided what is moral. WE decide what is religiously worthy. NOT God.

You need to ask yourself: “If we overrule God, why do we need him at all?”

This subjugation of our fellow humans is a failing of Biblical morality that can’t be reasonably addressed by apologetics. This is critical for all believers to understand. THEY CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either God is perfect or he’s not. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it’s not. Either God is the source of morality or he isn’t. Even a believer, if he’s honest with himself, must admit that if God’s morality grows outdated, it was never perfect and timeless to begin with. The alternative is to claim that God is right and that the subjugation of our fellow humans is NOT at all immoral – that it is, in fact, desirable. But we ALL know that’s an untenable position. We all know that is WRONG. We will not reverse our hard-earned moral progress to align it with God’s morality. This is why the issue is out of reach of apologetics.

The truth is that the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran reflect the morality and level of ignorance that existed in their respective eras and areas . . . precisely as they MUST if they’re written without the benefit of God’s input. These ancient tomes are NOT divinely inspired. God is NOT perfect. The issue of human subjugation proves that the personal, revealed, theist, God of the Abrahamic religions is irrefutably false. This doesn’t completely close the door on God, however: there’s still supernatural hope for the impersonal, cosmic, God of deists and pantheists.

Empathy is a human trait that spawns a number of other human traits just as naturally as it spawns morality. Empathy also spawns human dignity and worth, cooperation and compassion. We can live moral lives without God but not without empathy.

Choosing faith means rejecting truth. Which do you really want?


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Religious Thinking and Simple Minds

I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed
because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.” ~D. Dale Gulledge

Ignorance is our natural state: we were born ignorant. We learn what we know as we grow up and gradually replace ignorance with understanding (though not completely). Ignorance isn’t inherently good or bad, right or wrong. It just is. However, willful ignorance is another matter entirely.

Whether Christian or Muslim, we’ve all had our fair share of experiences with true believers and have come to understand what William G. McAdoo meant when he said, “It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” They are oblivious to reason and anointed in denial. Many (most?) Christians and Muslims, when faced with irrefutable evidence or an iron-clad argument, will almost never admit they are wrong. Instead, like the Catholic Church, they back-pedal and modify their arguments to mitigate the damage of evidence and logic. In other words, they selectively cultivate willful ignorance. Why is that?

Revealed religions claim to have a superior and objective moral system or standard because it is handed down by God via divinely inspired scripture. They are right when they claim that, without a supernatural entity to dictate behavior, there can be no objective morality. An omniscient God is the only possible source of objective morality because there is none to be found in nature. Nature has only a prime directive: survive. So, because we (atheists) believe God does not exist, most of us also believe morality can only be subjective.

One doesn’t need to be religious to believe in an objective morality: I’ve even seen so-called atheists tout various ethical systems as objective moral standards — Utilitarianism, survival-based cooperation, the avoidance of unnecessary pain or suffering, etc. Even Sam Harris believes in an objective moral standard with his “science can answer moral questions” thesis. But, of course, these are not objective moral standards at all . . . Who decides what serves the greater good? In what context are we to make survival-based decisions? Why do you claim something is unnecessary? Who collates and interprets the data? . . . Value judgments are at the heart of any moral or ethical system and they are, by definition, subjective. Pay attention to what these people say and you’re likely to see that they are didactic pedagogues attempting to force their pedantic dogma down your throat. Whether or not such a person is aware of it — or just good at disguising it — he or she harbors at least a little holier-than-thou (or more zen-than-thou) smugness.

Morality is subjective. Collectively, much of morality is determined by social norms. Majority opinions form socio-cultural norms that vary from place to place and over time and are often codified into law. Morality isn’t exactly dynamic but it does evolve as the human condition evolves. Even if an objective morality did exist, it could not evolve with us: it would be independent of us and unchanging in the same way scriptural morality is “written in stone”. When people imbue their personal ethics (religious or not) with certainty, they are, in effect, objectifying it: turning it into a quasi-objective morality. That’s the hubris called Playing God. Certainty is an illusion: especially where morality is concerned. Scientists and philosophers agree that certitude is a sure sign of trouble.

Oh . . . and about the so-called “superior and objective” morality of religion? Even if there is a personal God, EVERYBODY overrides his moral dictates (as contained in scripture). We reject slavery and the subjugation of women no matter what God tells us. And he tells us these travesties are the natural order of things in both the Old AND New Testaments. But we disagree. WE decide what is morally worthy: WE decide what is religious. Even if there is a God of Abraham, we don’t need him for moral guidance . . . so why do we need him at all?

It’s easy to understand the allure of an objective moral system. It offers a simple way to resolve complex issues. And it makes it easy to judge others with the comfortable self-righteousness of certainty. But we pay a price when others morally cop-out. Conflict. These people tend to relinquish critical thinking and to indulge in judgmentalism — a potent combination that leads to, and reinforces, fundamentalism. And when they feel the backlash of our objections, they perceive it as persecution. It’s the perfect recipe for simple-mindedness and denial — and unnecessary conflict. If you doubt that, turn on CNN and within half an hour you’ll see confirmation of this unnecessary conflict spawned from simple-minded denial.

That’s what religious thinking does. And the main mechanism for that is the false belief in an objective morality. But it’s not just religious thinking: it’s any kind of dogmatic zealotry based on certainty of one’s personal moral system. Vegetarian/vegan zealots and pro-life fanatics leap to mind as do other extreme left or right political wingnuts. Be wary of the certainty of moral absolutists: it indicates totalitarians in sheep’s clothing.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Control Through Fear

I’m sure most of you are aware that the Bible reflects the prevailing morals of ancient Israel. Along with the “good” morals there are other not-so-good ones that don’t need enumeration here. Unfortunately, all these morals, good and bad, right and wrong, were permanently incorporated into the Bible.

As humanity progressed, we recognized undesirable moral teachings in the Bible and simply quit practicing them. Even the most devout Christians became “scripturally selective” about teachings they practiced.

Biblical morality is set in stone, like an ancient statue, forever unchanging, because it is God’s word. But the true morality of both adherents and infidels, as actually practiced in the world, is decided by social norms. And there’s really not that much difference between the morality of adherents and infidels. There’s very few points of ethics limited strictly to any group (including Christians and atheists). The operative word in the prior sentence is “strictly”, okay? So don’t waste pixels replying with examples of ethics “favored by”, “typical of”, or “associated with” any particular group.

So WE decide what is moral. WE decide what biblical teachings to follow. We decide what is truly religious.

So why do we need or have religions at all? Whatever the reason, it’s DEFINITELY not for moral guidance. Although Jesus preached love, forgiveness and humility, he accepted slavery as a normal part of society and apparently felt no compunction to speak out against it. Neither did anybody else in the new Testament. In fact, Jesus advocated punishing servants severely for purposely shirking their responsibilities and punishing them less severely if they “are not aware that they are doing wrong” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT). There are many verses in the New Testament advising us how to treat slaves . . . and none of it is very loving, forgiving, or humble. So, in the modern world, even Jesus is morally overruled by adherents and infidels alike.

So if morality isn’t, in reality, the purpose of religion, what is? That pretty much leaves salvation and the eternal reward of heaven. In other words: control through fear — because the alternative is damnation and the eternal torments of hell. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.” As long as religions can convince people they have a monopoly on morality, they can continue to disguise their true motivation: control through fear.

P.S.
I posted (as “admin”) a reply to a comment, below, that adds to and clarifies the post, above.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Atheism and the Illusion of Certainty

Scientists and philosophers agree that certainty is an illusion. Although we’ve learned a lot about nature and the universe, there’s still many very fundamental unanswered questions. Mix in the subjective and limited faculty of human perception and one begins to see the magnitude of ignorance beyond the scope of our meager knowledge. But don’t take my word for it . . .

“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.” ~Bertrand Russell

“Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is absurd.” ~Voltaire

“Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous.” ~Will Durant

“Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.” ~Bertrand Russell

“I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty, about different things. But I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don’t know anything about. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things — by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose — which is the way it really is as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.” ~Richard Feynman

“The educated in [the critical habit of thought] are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain.” ~William Graham Sumner

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” ~Albert Einstein

We still don’t know the nature of reality. To what extent do quantum effects extend into the classical realm? Is reality really a matter of probabilities, or are there simply too many variables for our feeble minds to grasp? Information is a fundamental property of matter at the quantum level: why would that be? And we’re still not sure what role, if any, consciousness plays in reality.

Then there’s the question of which God we’re talking about: the indifferent Prime Mover of deists and pantheists – or the personal, revealed, creator of the Abrahamic religions? Our knowledge of the former is nebulous at best: there’s not much information available about this absentee God. However, our knowledge of the latter is an entirely different matter: we have plenty of information about him via his allegedly divinely-inspired scriptures. Thanks to these 3 scriptures (the Hebrew bible, the New Testament and the Quran) it is easy to prove the God of Abraham (including his incarnate form as Jesus) is definitively not the omniscient and omnibenevolent source of morality his faithful followers claim him to be.

So, we can rule out the Abrahamic God but if you’re talking about the absentee Prime Mover, then the practical considerations, above, factor into the question of his existence. Atheists who value rational integrity and limit their claims to what they can actually substantiate, can reasonably claim that all evidence seems to point away from God and that the odds of his existence appears to be vanishingly remote. This is enough for many of us to claim the title of atheist with a high degree of confidence. Many others who hold this same position believe they are technically agnostics, because they do admit the possibility of such a God’s existence, however unlikely.

Personally, I rank myself as an atheist. But I don’t claim that God does not exist. I can’t support that claim for all gods; just the God of Abraham – as perceived by his adherents and portrayed by doctrine. I can’t make the same claims about the God of deists and pantheists because there is no scripture or doctrine to base any claims upon. In fact, there’s no information at all about this absentee cosmic creator. Given the ineffable mystery of existence and the depth of our ignorance, it’s not impossible that the universe is created instead of spontaneous or eternal. Occam’s Razor suggests a creator God is less likely than no creator God at all but it does not rule out the possibility. The fact is, we still don’t know how (or if) the universe began.

Certainty about God’s existence – or his nonexistence – is equally unsupportable, either way.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


How Likely is God?

Before discussing the likelihood of God, we first need to define who or what he is. Most people think of God as either the biblical God or as an absentee creator of the universe: either a personal God or an impersonal God. The biblical God is famous for his split personality, as portrayed by the Old and New Testaments. As a result, the biblical God may be something to be feared or to be loved; depending on your interpretations of his scripture. The other God, the impersonal creator of the universe, is the God of deists: a God who left his stamp on creation and determined how the universe would unfurl through eternity, then just let it be.

Both Gods are supernatural creators of the universe. The major difference between them is their level of interest in the morality of our behavior. The biblical God has formal rules we must obey or else suffer unimaginably severe consequences. The deist God, is more laissez-faire and is perfectly content with his creation the way it is and hasn’t formally indicated any kind of moral preferences (much less, consequences).

The deist God is impossible to confirm or to rule out – mostly because of his absentee status. If he doesn’t meddle with his creation, he doesn’t leave any evidence of his presence or actions. We can’t tell the difference between an absentee God and a nonexistent God, so the question of his likelihood comes down to Occam’s Razor: there’s no reason to assert the God hypothesis. Based on reason, I would be very surprised if this deist God exists . . . but it really doesn’t matter very much, other than knowing he’s out there. He’s aloof: makes no demands and threatens no punishment. That’s fine with me.

The biblical God is another matter entirely.

The biblical God is the God of Abraham: worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Abrahamic religions have divergent ideas of what God represents (based on their particular scriptures) but there are some things they all share in common. At their core, all the Abrahamic religions believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. They all believe their creator is perfect and timeless.

But when one looks at the biblical God’s influence on humanity, one can’t help but notice contradictions to God’s omni-everything. If Jesus was right about judging a tree by its fruit, then it can be fairly asserted that the Abrahamic religions have been the most persistently divisive influence in the history of mankind. That’s not exactly a resounding endorsement of God’s omni-anything.

Either God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent or he isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. This means that, if you can reasonably disprove these qualities of God, you have reasonably disproved the existence of the biblical God. You only need to prove it once.

As it turns out, the very thing that distinguishes the biblical God from the cosmic one is also the very thing that disproves the existence of the biblical God. Namely, morality.

Of all God’s moral deficiencies, there’s one that’s special: human subjugation . . . slavery and male dominance over women. I’ve recently blogged about this moral weakness of God and his scripture. It’s called “The Death of Christian Apologetics”. Click the link to find out exactly how likely the biblical God really is.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Join the Forum discussion on this post