Believers in God - a question

[DangerousBeliefs]

Since JetLeg appears to not want to answer the question...

So you believe that God is a real, live, floating around entity?

Perhaps you even believe the God of the Bible or Quran is real.

Ok, let's say you start hearing a voice in your head that tells you it is God. It offers several proofs by telling you things that only you would know... and even... a few you thought you didn't know.

Then the voice says you are special... chosen, as Moses was chosen... as Noah was chosen. It even quotes scripture, maybe even some you thought you didn't know, word for word.

God has chosen you, and you alone, to kill the first born child of your next door neighbor.

What would you do?

[plumjam]

Since JetLeg appears to not want to answer the question...

So you believe that God is a real, live, floating around entity?

Perhaps you even believe the God of the Bible or Quran is real.

Ok, let's say you start hearing a voice in your head that tells you it is God. It offers several proofs by telling you things that only you would know... and even... a few you thought you didn't know.

Then the voice says you are special... chosen, as Moses was chosen... as Noah was chosen. It even quotes scripture, maybe even some you thought you didn't know, word for word.

God has chosen you, and you alone, to kill the first born child of your next door neighbor.

What would you do?

I'd worry about the sanity of someone who'd bother to go onto an internet forum to ask such a weird convoluted question.
Did a voice tell you to? ;)

[uruk]

So I guess that is an official "avoidance of the question" post.

[bokonon]

As an unbeliever, I'd tell the voice to "kill him yourself, if you're so all-fired powerful," and then I'd seek psychiatric help.

[DangerousBeliefs]

So I guess that is an official "avoidance of the question" post.

Yeah, you can kind of hear a pin drop on this question...

There were certainly lots of atheist responses in the "Would you believe in God if burning letters appeared in the sky" thread.

[ChristineR]

I known at least one believer to say yes. But the truth is that God never tells sane people to do insane things. Funny that--God acts exactly as if He were an internal mental phenomenon.

[Cello Man]

I'd worry about the sanity of someone who'd bother to go onto an internet forum to ask such a weird convoluted question.
Did a voice tell you to? ;)

I believe he's referring to this post by JetLeg.

...but you can indeed say that morality comes from God's will, and it is arbitrary in this sense. Whatever he commands, even if it is genocide is good simply by the virtue of being said by god.

(Post #17 in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974489#post2974489) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974489#post2974489)

The statement above is so extraordinarily disturbing to me that it slays hyperbole dead in its tracks. It represents a complete abdication of one's conscience to the whim of a being that hasn't been shown to exist. Assuming JetLeg is sincere, it seems that if some religious authority figure (or just a voice in his head!) managed to convince him that genocide is what his god wants, he would be more than happy to take part in whatever "final solution" this entails.

So, DangerousBeliefs' question at the outset of this thread is far from flippant or irrelevant. I think it's a very serious question, which theists should ask themselves with complete honesty and open eyes.

So Plumjam, if you thought that your god wanted you to kill, would you?

[bokonon]

Yeah, you can kind of hear a pin drop on this question...

There were certainly lots of atheist responses in the "Would you believe in God if burning letters appeared in the sky" thread.
I missed that thread, but yeah, I probably would, if the burning letters were the celestial objects formerly known as stars.

I would also accept the anti-rapture of every female on the planet (clothes whisked to heaven while the ladies remain behind, eager to convey the message of his holy love to me in person, the line forms here).

[plumjam]

So Plumjam, if you thought that your god wanted you to kill, would you?

Until my life experience shows me otherwise I believe the best way to resolve matters of a moral nature is to honestly examine ones conscience.
It has been argued in some places that our conscience is a link to God. The important thing is that you don't have to believe in God to have access to conscience.

So far my conscience hasn't told me to kill anyone. In certain future circumstances it might do so.. e.g. to protect others, or to participate in a just war.
If I were to start hearing voices telling me to kill I would put what they were saying to the same test of conscience.
The voices may tally with my conscience or go against it. In whichever case I'd go with my conscience.
The question of what I'd do if I believed the voice was God.. well that one gets stymied by my belief that conscience is a kind of, if you like, 'voiceless' connection to God.
If what the voiced God was telling me went against the unvoiced God I'd ignore the former.

[ChristineR]

I missed that thread, but yeah, I probably would, if the burning letters were the celestial objects formerly known as stars.

I would also accept the anti-rapture of every female on the planet (clothes whisked to heaven while the ladies remain behind, eager to convey the message of his holy love to me in person, the line forms here).

Ah, remember the Valentine's day episode of Buffy where Xander got that wish granted? Of course Xander lived in a town full of vampires, some of whom were female...that complicates things a little. If you ever find yourself in this situation--pray!

[cj.23]

Since JetLeg appears to not want to answer the question...

So you believe that God is a real, live, floating around entity?

Perhaps you even believe the God of the Bible or Quran is real.

Ok, let's say you start hearing a voice in your head that tells you it is God. It offers several proofs by telling you things that only you would know... and even... a few you thought you didn't know.

Then the voice says you are special... chosen, as Moses was chosen... as Noah was chosen. It even quotes scripture, maybe even some you thought you didn't know, word for word.

God has chosen you, and you alone, to kill the first born child of your next door neighbor.

What would you do?

Anglican Christian. I'd seek psychiatric advice, immediately! :)

cj x

[ImaginalDisc]

Until my life experience shows me otherwise I believe the best way to resolve matters of a moral nature is to honestly examine ones conscience.
It has been argued in some places that our conscience is a link to God. The important thing is that you don't have to believe in God to have access to conscience.

So far my conscience hasn't told me to kill anyone. In certain future circumstances it might do so.. e.g. to protect others, or to participate in a just war.
If I were to start hearing voices telling me to kill I would put what they were saying to the same test of conscience.
The voices may tally with my conscience or go against it. In whichever case I'd go with my conscience.
The question of what I'd do if I believed the voice was God.. well that one gets stymied by my belief that conscience is a kind of, if you like, 'voiceless' connection to God.
If what the voiced God was telling me went against the unvoiced God I'd ignore the former.

You're avoiding the question, again.

If god's voice rang out in your head, as clear as a bell, commanding you to lay waste to an entire nation, as he allegedly commanded Moses would you do it?

[plumjam]

You're avoiding the question, again.

If god's voice rang out in your head, as clear as a bell, commanding you to lay waste to an entire nation, as he allegedly commanded Moses would you do it?

read the last line of my post.
so no.

[Foster Zygote]

Anglican Christian. I'd seek psychiatric advice, immediately! :)

cj x

[Eddie Izzard]Cake or death?[/Eddie Izzard]

I think this answer illustrates an interesting issue regarding this matter. Most any normal, mentally and emotionally sound person will react as you said you would. The most likely person to act on such impulses is someone who is already mentally ill. Of course we're talking about voices in one's head. As to the matter of one's being willing to kill for someone else who claims to speak for God it seems that what is most often required is simply a weak mind and a good measure of ignorance and hate. These properties are, sadly, all to common among the naked apes.

[JetLeg]

I believe he's referring to this post by JetLeg.



(Post #17 in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974489#post2974489) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974489#post2974489)

The statement above is so extraordinarily disturbing to me that it slays hyperbole dead in its tracks. It represents a complete abdication of one's conscience to the whim of a being that hasn't been shown to exist. Assuming JetLeg is sincere, it seems that if some religious authority figure (or just a voice in his head!) managed to convince him that genocide is what his god wants, he would be more than happy to take part in whatever "final solution" this entails.

So, DangerousBeliefs' question at the outset of this thread is far from flippant or irrelevant. I think it's a very serious question, which theists should ask themselves with complete honesty and open eyes.

So Plumjam, if you thought that your god wanted you to kill, would you?

I did not say that I would be happy. If he would tell me to help an old lady to pass the street, I would be happy. If he would tell me to do something bad, I would not be happy. Actually, I don't think I would do it - but for psychological reasons. I just can't, and I don't want to.

But, if I have the idea that god is good by definition, or that god is good no-matter-what, then it simply logically follows that whetever he commands must be good, no?

[ChristineR]

I did not say that I would be happy. If he would tell me to help an old lady to pass the street, I would be happy. If he would tell me to do something bad, I would not be happy. Actually, I don't think I would do it - but for psychological reasons. I just can't, and I don't want to.

But, if I have the idea that god is good by definition, or that god is good no-matter-what, then it simply logically follows that whetever he commands must be good, no?

Now please think about the implications of your statement if God turns out to be a wholly mental phenomenon, a group of shared beliefs and delusions. If you can't wrap your head around the idea of God being a delusion, you can consider Zeus, as the ancients had pretty much these same discussions about Zeus.

[JetLeg]

Now please think about the implications of your statement if God turns out to be a wholly mental phenomenon, a group of shared beliefs and delusions. If you can't wrap your head around the idea of God being a delusion, you can consider Zeus, as the ancients had pretty much these same discussions about Zeus.

Yes, I agree. If I am wrong, then it is very bad.

[Foster Zygote]

I did not say that I would be happy. If he would tell me to help an old lady to pass the street, I would be happy. If he would tell me to do something bad, I would not be happy. Actually, I don't think I would do it - but for psychological reasons. I just can't, and I don't want to.

But, if I have the idea that god is good by definition, or that god is good no-matter-what, then it simply logically follows that whetever he commands must be good, no?

I hate to Godwin all over this thread, but try it with a couple of alterations:

But, if I have the idea that the Führer is good by definition, or that the Führer is good no-matter-what, then it simply logically follows that whetever he commands must be good, no?

[JetLeg]

I hate to Godwin all over this thread, but try it with a couple of alterations:

But, if I have the idea that the Führer is good by definition, or that the Führer is good no-matter-what, then it simply logically follows that whetever he commands must be good, no?

Because Fuhrer is not good by definition, unlike god.

God is defined as omnibenevolent.

[JetLeg]

Because Fuhrer is not good by definition, unlike god.

God is defined as omnibenevolent.

Ok, I see the problem with this. Some one can define "Fuhrer" as "an omnibenevolent leader", and then just declare that hitler is the Fuhrer.


But if I believe that god is omnibenevolent, and I read in the OT (Old Testament) seemingly immoral things that god did, what other logical conclusion can I reach that these immoral things are actually moral?

[ChristineR]

JetLeg, you are starting to sound like an atheist in the making. Many of us Ex-Christian atheists asked the same questions and came to the logical conclusion: the God of the Bible is not omnibenevolent, hence is not God.

I presume you have already come to the same conclusions about the justifiable homicides of Zeus, Krishna, Allah, and other deities in general. (I could be wrong--there are a few Christians who have liberal ideas about these things.) It's amazing how something can be obvious about other people's sacred beliefs yet not be obvious when applied to your own beliefs.

[JetLeg]

Why is your conclusion that god of the bible is not god better than that the acts he commands are actually moral?

[Cello Man]

JetLeg, there was a spot-on response to your OP in the "Is it?" thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93629) from Seismosarus which still applies here. Read this very carefully.


Your problem is that you are starting with "god is good"... which really should be a conclusion. You start from your conclusion and work back to interpret the evidence to support it. You can do that if you like, but it's not good thinking.

I mean, I could equally say "I believe that Charles Manson is innocent. So therefore all the evidence against him, including his own confession, must be wrong; mistakes by the witnesses, misinterpretation, incorrect lab results, whatever - it's irrelevant why, they just must be wrong if he's innocent."

Can you do that? Sure. But does it make any sense? No.
(bolding emphasis mine)

I didn't notice a response to this in the other thread, but I think that it nails the core issue: Assuming the conclusion "God is good" and working backwards from there.

[someone11]

Why should you not leave JetLeg alone?


It is his belief.

[JetLeg]

JetLeg, there was a spot-on response to your OP in the "Is it?" thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93629) from Seismosarus which still applies here. Read this very carefully.


(bolding emphasis mine)

I didn't notice a response to this in the other thread, but I think that it nails the core issue: Assuming the conclusion "God is good" and working backwards from there.

Yes, I am doing exactly this - assuming the conclusion "god is good" and working backwards from there.

Why cannot I assume it from scratch? So many people think it is true. Besides, it is comforting emotionally. An omnibenevolent god is much more pleasing to think about than a non-omnibenevolent one.

And then working back from the assumption is just logic...

[Cello Man]

Someone11,

If JetLeg wanted to be left alone, he wouldn't come to this forum to share his thoughts and invite our comments. He wants a discussion so I'm giving him one.

[Foster Zygote]

Because Fuhrer is not good by definition, unlike god.

God is defined as omnibenevolent.

But the Führer was good by the definition of the Nazi Party. Just because you define "God" as good does not mean that this is a universal definition. A Hindu can define Ganesh as good while a Christian can define Ganesh as evil.

[JetLeg]

But the Führer was good by the definition of the Nazi Party. Just because you define "God" as good does not mean that this is a universal definition. A Hindu can define Ganesh as good while a Christian can define Ganesh as evil.

Yes, I agreed that saying god is good by definition is not enough. One could define god as "omnipotent bad creator", and that wouldn't make him bad by definition, I think.

Or would it? Can you define things into existance?

[ChristineR]

Why is your conclusion that god of the bible is not god better than that the acts he commands are actually moral?

For the same reason that your conclusion that the god of the Koran, etc. is not God is better than than the acts that the god of the Koran (etc.) commands are not actually moral.

That statement swirled down into a cesspool of grammar, but the point is that if I decide to give a pass to the god of the Bible, I have to justify not giving a pass to the gods of other faiths. I cannot come up with such a justification--can you? Either I give all of them a pass, or none of them.

[JetLeg]

Or would it? Can you define things into existance?

Ok, you probably can't

[Cello Man]

Yes, I am doing exactly this - assuming the conclusion "god is good" and working backwards from there. Why cannot I assume it from scratch?

No one is holding a gun to your head saying you can't. I'm just pointing out that while you as a human being are free to act as you choose, your reasons for doing so are rooted in bad logic.

The scientific method has proven to be the most reliable tool for humans to make sense of the world and improve our quality of life. The fact that we're having this discussion over the internet is due to people gathering information, forming hypotheses, testing them, rejecting those that don't work and refining the ones that do work.

Why should religious questions opt out of this logical form of inquiry which has served us so well in every other matter? Go back and read what I reposted from Seismosaurus. When you read it about Charles Manson his question makes perfect sense. But when you replace Manson with God, suddenly the goalposts move and the analogy no longer works to you. Why is that?

So many people think it is true.
What the majority believes has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

[JetLeg]

No one is holding a gun to your head saying you can't. I'm just pointing out that while you as a human being are free to act as you choose, your reasons for doing so are rooted in bad logic.

The scientific method has proven to be the most reliable tool for humans to make sense of the world and improve our quality of life. The fact that we're having this discussion over the internet is due to people gathering information, forming hypotheses, testing them, rejecting those that don't work and refining the ones that do work.

Why should religious questions opt out of this logical form of inquiry which has served us so well in every other matter? Go back and read what I reposted from Seismosaurus. When you read it about Charles Manson his question makes perfect sense. But when you replace Manson with God, suddenly the goalposts move and the analogy no longer works to you. Why is that?


What the majority believes has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

Actually, science gave us pretty bad things as well. A-bomb, and the consumerist society we live in. Science no longer serves to increase the quality of living of the human race, but just to give us silly toys to play with. But, that is an issue for another post.

Listen, but all theology works like that. You assume something about god.

I am not sure how you come to the assumptions, but no one wants to assume that god is evil, right? Or that he loves only people whose name begins with M.

And then, you reintrepret the knowledge you have about the world in light of this hypothesis.

You don't mean that you don't respect theology, right? Because thats how they work...

[Cello Man]

Actually, science gave us pretty bad things as well. A-bomb...

Political forces were the "necessity" behind the invention of atomic weaponry. Science is merely the toolbox used to facilitate that invention. To simply say "Science gave us the A-bomb" as if the scientific community were a singular monolithic entity is missing the point.

and the consumerist society we live in.

The driving force behind that is human sociological behavor: our group and survival instincts. Some guy in a white labcoat didn't mix two chemicals together one day and say, "Eureka! I've just invented ramapant capitalism!"

Science no longer serves to increase the quality of living of the human race, but just to give us silly toys to play with. But, that is an issue for another post.

Here I have to call complete BS. How many infectious diseases have you been vaccinated against? Do you enjoy air conditioning? How about your car? How much of your food supply comes from selectively bred (i.e. genetically engineered) crops and livestock? Unless you live on a self-sufficient farm, the answer to that is probably close to 100%. You can thank science for making it possible for you to avoid an agrarian lifestyle, where have leisure time to discuss things like this on the internet. Your hunter-gatherer ancestors couldn't even dream of the kind of luxury you and I enjoy.

Listen, but all theology works like that. You assume something about god. I am not sure how you come to the assumptions, but no one wants to assume that god is evil, right? Or that he loves only people whose name begins with M. And then, you reintrepret the knowledge you have about the world in light of this hypothesis.

I do the only logical thing I can, which is not making assumptions where I have no evidence to even test. I'm not the kind of atheist who says, "I believe there is no God", because you can't prove a negative.

I simply don't assume that a god exists. Unless I see evidence that might lead me to that conclusion I'll keep not making that assumption.

You don't mean that you don't respect theology, right? Because thats how they work...

No, I don't respect theology, for the same reason I don't respect astrology. They simply don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. However, don't confuse a lack of respect for theology as hatred for those who believe it. Another analogy: Just because I don't care about football doesn't mean that I personally hate football players.

[Beerina]

But the Führer was good by the definition of the Nazi Party. Just because you define "God" as good does not mean that this is a universal definition. A Hindu can define Ganesh as good while a Christian can define Ganesh as evil.

Defining God as "good", apriori, is a bit of putting the cart before the horse, but there you go. (Note that this has no bearing on the Bible or the god of the Bible.)

So what is "good", besides a, so far, meaningless label applied to an anthropocentric creater of reality?

Oh, "good" must mean, among other things, stuff like not intervening in torture and murder, but only if you have infinite capacity to stop it.

It means you can hold finite mortals to account for not giving food to the starving, while it means you, the infinite being, must simultaneously not give food to the starving, at least not on any kind of statistically significant scale.

At this point, whatever "good" is, it is not "good" in the conventional sense. Hence I conclude the concept that the creator of the universe is "good" is invalid, at least for the conventional forms of what reality "is".

[uruk]

Yeah, you can kind of hear a pin drop on this question...

There were certainly lots of atheist responses in the "Would you believe in God if burning letters appeared in the sky" thread.
I'd only believe it if the burning letters said: "Sorry for the inconvienance."

[zombiebex]

Actually, science gave us pretty bad things as well. A-bomb, and the consumerist society we live in. Science no longer serves to increase the quality of living of the human race, but just to give us silly toys to play with.

But no one is denying the existence of A-bombs or questions where they came from.

And silly toys like a cure for AIDS. Don't need that. Moving on.

[Darth Rotor]

God has chosen you, and you alone, to kill the first born child of your next door neighbor.

What would you do?
I'd ask the Holy Ghost for a second opinion, to ensure I understood the spirit of the law. The more likely command, DB, would be to kill a boat load of Atheists, given a number of Scriptural references in the OT to go forth and slay all of those other nations who were not the Jews.

Oh dear, DB, we have a problem.

I'm not a Jew, as Moses was, but a Christian, and we have little to no record of Big Daddy, Junior, or the Spook commanding Christians to kill little babies. He seemed to have provided Christians an updated instruction set.

Still, if you find a salted Cynical Sith in your neighborhood with a lot of ammo, gunning down unbelievers, it might be me, it might be someone else, or it might be that you need to get off the PcP and revert to whiskey and wine.

DR

[JetLeg]

Political forces were the "necessity" behind the invention of atomic weaponry. Science is merely the toolbox used to facilitate that invention. To simply say "Science gave us the A-bomb" as if the scientific community were a singular monolithic entity is missing the point.

The driving force behind that is human sociological behavor: our group and survival instincts. Some guy in a white labcoat didn't mix two chemicals together one day and say, "Eureka! I've just invented ramapant capitalism!"

Here I have to call complete BS. How many infectious diseases have you been vaccinated against? Do you enjoy air conditioning? How about your car? How much of your food supply comes from selectively bred (i.e. genetically engineered) crops and livestock? Unless you live on a self-sufficient farm, the answer to that is probably close to 100%. You can thank science for making it possible for you to avoid an agrarian lifestyle, where have leisure time to discuss things like this on the internet. Your hunter-gatherer ancestors couldn't even dream of the kind of luxury you and I enjoy.




Infectious diseases vaccination, air conditioning, selectively bred crops and livestock are products not only of scientific discovery, but also of positive social forces promoting these. You cannot blame society & politics for A-bombs, and consumerism, and ignore them with the above.

Do you think that discovering facts abou the world is good in itself, or neutral since it can be used both ways?

[JetLeg]

I do the only logical thing I can, which is not making assumptions where I have no evidence to even test. I'm not the kind of atheist who says, "I believe there is no God", because you can't prove a negative.

I simply don't assume that a god exists. Unless I see evidence that might lead me to that conclusion I'll keep not making that assumption.

No, I don't respect theology, for the same reason I don't respect astrology. They simply don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. However, don't confuse a lack of respect for theology as hatred for those who believe it. Another analogy: Just because I don't care about football doesn't mean that I personally hate football players.


But there were really lots of smart people who did theology. Do you imply there all did BS?

[DangerousBeliefs]

So, let me get this straight... believers in the thread.

This voice is telling you it is God.

Your response is that you must be irrational, possibly mentally unbalanced? You would seek a mental professional?

Again, this is a voice that is clearly, convincingly God. Think of something only you would know and it answers you.

So, you feel a God which doesn't answer you is a rational thought, but one which does answer you is irrational because it asks you to do something which you feel is immoral? God asks many many people in the Bible to kill others. It doesn't appear to be an irrational request for Him.

DR, your answer is interesting. You believe the god of Moses is not the same god as that of Jesus? We just ignore the back of the Bible and concentrate on the front?

[Cello Man]

Infectious diseases vaccination, air conditioning, selectively bred crops and livestock are products not only of scientific discovery, but also of positive social forces promoting these. You cannot blame society & politics for A-bombs, and consumerism, and ignore them with the above.

Of course positive social forces were involved, and I didn't say they weren't. I was simply making a point to counter your assertion that science doesn't presently contribute to our quality of life and only produces "toys" these days.

Do you think that discovering facts abou the world is good in itself, or neutral since it can be used both ways?

Knowledge in and of itself is utterly neutral. I have no delusion that the pursuit of scientific discovery is inexorably propelling us towards a perfect futuristic utopia, but it makes the tools to get there available to us, provided we're smart enough to figure out how not to kill each other along the way.

But there were really lots of smart people who did theology. Do you imply there all did BS?

I have no doubt that most theologians are completely sincere in what they do, and many of them are quite intelligent. However I do believe at the core of their thoughts is a compartmentalized intellectual blind spot.

If someone said told you that eating a special kind of pudding turns them invisible, natural human curiousity would compel you to ask them to show you. This is an extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary evidence. But when the subject being examined is a said to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent (three traits which are mutually exclusive), no evidence is required. They turn a blind eye to the question because it casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

The existence of god is assumed, and theologians quickly begin splitting hairs about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, all the while ignoring whether or not angels really exist at all.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Hum, have I constructed such a scenario that believers are afraid to even think about it?

It is exactly the kind of troubling thought that a believer should have.

Us atheists automatically think "I must be having mental issues" if we're hearing a voice which says it is God.

The same as we think there are non-Godlike explanations for other events in the Universe.

[Snap]

How do you verify that the voice you are hearing is God's, even if it's just Him saying "Hello?"

[DangerousBeliefs]

How do you verify that the voice you are hearing is God's, even if it's just Him saying "Hello?"

It's pretty obvious...

If God answers you, then you're blessed of God.

Unless he asks you to do something immoral, then you're crazy. :rolleyes:

[cj.23]

So, let me get this straight... believers in the thread.

This voice is telling you it is God.

Your response is that you must be irrational, possibly mentally unbalanced? You would seek a mental professional?

Again, this is a voice that is clearly, convincingly God. Think of something only you would know and it answers you.

Sure. However I know it, so it's hardly convincing is it? I'd therefore apply all the same tests i normally do to any claim. I'd think "am I more likely to be hearing the voice of God, or am I psychiatrically ill?" And then I'd call a doctor. :)


So, you feel a God which doesn't answer you is a rational thought, but one which does answer you is irrational because it asks you to do something which you feel is immoral? God asks many many people in the Bible to kill others. It doesn't appear to be an irrational request for Him.

He gave me Free Will, and that includes the right to disobey. I believe God does answer prayers, and mindful of the fact that the Devil can manifest as an angel of light I'd assume diabolic origin if psychiatric illness was not sufficient. And whatever the cause, I'd say no. Free Will is good like that!

cj x

[Blue Monk]

Since JetLeg appears to not want to answer the question...

So you believe that God is a real, live, floating around entity?

Perhaps you even believe the God of the Bible or Quran is real.

Ok, let's say you start hearing a voice in your head that tells you it is God. It offers several proofs by telling you things that only you would know... and even... a few you thought you didn't know.

Then the voice says you are special... chosen, as Moses was chosen... as Noah was chosen. It even quotes scripture, maybe even some you thought you didn't know, word for word.

God has chosen you, and you alone, to kill the first born child of your next door neighbor.

What would you do?

Same thing I always do...

Tell that voice to shut up! I'm trying to watch 'Oprah'.

[JetLeg]

Since JetLeg appears to not want to answer the question...

So you believe that God is a real, live, floating around entity?

Perhaps you even believe the God of the Bible or Quran is real.

Ok, let's say you start hearing a voice in your head that tells you it is God. It offers several proofs by telling you things that only you would know... and even... a few you thought you didn't know.

Then the voice says you are special... chosen, as Moses was chosen... as Noah was chosen. It even quotes scripture, maybe even some you thought you didn't know, word for word.

God has chosen you, and you alone, to kill the first born child of your next door neighbor.

What would you do?

I would not do it. I am not sure if I have really good reasons not to, but I just would not. That just is not the kind of things I do.

[ChristineR]

I would not do it. I am not sure if I have really good reasons not to, but I just would not. That just is not the kind of things I do.

This is commendable. It also shows me that your morality does not come from God. Indeed your moral standards appear to have surpassed that of the Biblical God.

[JetLeg]

ChristineR,

Where does the morality of hi-jack bombers come from? Does it come from god or not? They definitely would say that it does. Do you think otherwise? After all, they do it because they think GOD wants them to (part of the reasons of course). So, if they think it, how can you deny that their morality comes from god?

[DangerousBeliefs]

ChristineR,

Where does the morality of hi-jack bombers come from? Does it come from god or not? They definitely would say that it does. Do you think otherwise? After all, they do it because they think GOD wants them to (part of the reasons of course). So, if they think it, how can you deny that their morality comes from god?

Which god? Who's god? How do we know which god's morality is right?

In fact, based on the evidence, God is ignoring us.

[JetLeg]

Ok.

Will you agree that the hi-jackers ideas about right and wrong(not that I agree with them) come from their belief in god?

[articulett]

It's pretty obvious...

If God answers you, then you're blessed of God.

Unless he asks you to do something immoral, then you're crazy. :rolleyes:

Or a test of your faith... like when he asked Abraham to kill Isaac--

Or that whole apple thing...

As a general policy, I'd say it's a good idea to ignore all commands from invisible immeasurable entities and to seek psychiatric help if believe such are communicating with you....

[articulett]

The beliefs of believers always sound so incoherent... it's clearly coming from them--their own brain, but they believe it's morality or something coming from god-- the invisible, immeasurable creator of the universe who is keeping score regarding some nebulous rubric no-one agrees upon to determine how your ghost will spend eternity... or something like that. He wants you to do good things which he determines but he isn't really clear about his existence and what those things are.

What if he told you to kill the neighbors kid because Satan was about to tempt the kid and the kid would burn forever unless you killed him now? Andrea Yates believed something like that about her own kids. Charles Manson claimed to be a prophet. The hijackers died for their god's wishes-- and there's no damn way to show that any of these strongly held beliefs are true or accomplish anything "good" at all.

Those who believe they will be rewarded for their "faith" after they die are indulging in the same fantasy as the hijackers, are they not? If faith is good-- then testing that faith and revealing extreme faith is better, isn't it? How can one who believes that god talks to people ever be the judge of what he said to who and when? Maybe he wanted to be partying in heaven with planeloads of people who were ready to start their "happily ever after"-- maybe it was part of his plan-- like when he killed his kid (who was really him) and then blamed Jews for fulfilling that plan--

Religions and gods make no sense. No one is ever clear about what they believe, and I think it's because they don't know-- they just believe that it's good to say you believe. I am not all loving, but I would not create a life if I thought there was a chance that it could suffer for eternity. I am a much better person than the supposed omnibenevolent invisible egomaniac in the bible (who could have alleviated a lot of human suffering just by mentioning DNA--the fact that the male determines the sex of the child... and germ theory... but alas).

[articulett]

Ok.

Will you agree that the hi-jackers ideas about right and wrong(not that I agree with them) come from their belief in god?

They believe their morality comes from the invisible creator of the universe--the same as you believe. These are immeasurable "supernatural" things--

Morality evolved and is shaped by culture--including religion. People and other primates (as well as other animals) show some basic morality without gods--plus they NEVER kill for any invisible entities.

I think believers are always pretty dodgy about what exactly they believe so that it can't be disproven. They avoid being pinned down. It usually boils down to some "essence" outside of nature that listens to them and comforts them and has a plan for them and will ensure they live forever. It's sort of a Santa for adults-- he knows if they are "good" or "bad" and parcels out goodies accordingly...

[JetLeg]

(who could have alleviated a lot of human suffering just by mentioning DNA--the fact that the male determines the sex of the child... and germ theory... but alas).

What human suffering could be avoided by mentioning the fact that the male determines the sex of the child?