Vilifying God

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I cannot see that. Can you explain it?

[b]It is only in your irrational hatred of Jesus that you would make such a silly and ill thought remark
I do not hate Jesus. I just made an honest comment based on what I see. And as long as you resort to insults rather than actually explaining why you think I am incorrect, I will have to assume that it is just a knee jerk reaction on your part to something that you have no defense for.[/b]

Even the die hard atheists like the Communists have paid a left handed compliment to Religion by saying that it is the opium of the masses, thereby implying that religion has dulled the pain felt by millions while struggling with their hard lives. Then how is it that you " don't see it "?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The so called " moral compass " ,in the beginning of human society, is a handiwork of man and is not God's doing.This moral system must have come into being to safeguard the newly emergent human society from its own members who could have threatened the fabric of this society by their anti social mores.The moral framework must have developed into a syst ...[text shortened]... name of God " or similar thoughts are there in every theology including Hindu theology.

All of this is completely irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter how human moral codes evolved. The fact remains that if god operates by a moral code that is incomprehensible to mankind, then mankind has no basis for asserting that god is morally good. The extent of god's goodness would simply be unknowable.

On the other side of that, we have, in the Christian bible, acts committed by god which could only be described as evil by any moral code. Genocide. The drowning of all but a small handful of the world's population. It is simply not possible to reconcile such an act with any knowable standard of goodness. If god is operating by a moral code that IS knowable to mankind, then he is demonstrably evil. If he is operating by a moral code that is unknowable, then god's goodness, likewise, is unknowable.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Even the die hard atheists like the Communists have paid a left handed compliment to Religion by saying that it is the opium of the masses, thereby implying that religion has dulled the pain felt by millions while struggling with their hard lives. Then how is it that you " don't see it "?

Should we hand out free Opium then?

Originally posted by rwingett
All of this is completely irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter how human moral codes evolved. The fact remains that if god operates by a moral code that is incomprehensible to mankind, then mankind has no basis for asserting that god is morally good. The extent of god's goodness would simply be unknowable.

On the other side of that, we have, in the ...[text shortened]... operating by a moral code that is unknowable, then god's goodness, likewise, is unknowable.

The moral code made by humans does not apply to God. God's plan is not open to scrutiny by humans. God,by definition,is not a person. He is certainly not your friendly neighbourhood policeman. So how can Jesus be called a sadist, if in a Holy Book written by disciples of Jesus, punishments are held out for not following the Religion described in the Book?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Should we hand out free Opium then?

You are not answering my question. Why can you not see that religion ( better term is faith ) has helped millions to overcome grief and misery of every sort in their daily grind. What does Dawkins and his friends offer to alleviate human angst ? Barbiturates or pamphlets describing latest Cosmology theory ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You are not answering my question. Why can you not see that religion ( better term is faith ) has helped millions to overcome grief and misery of every sort in their daily grind.

Because I am not convinced that it is any better than Opium. I do not believe drugs do help people overcome grief. I believe they make it worse. They only make people temporarily forget their grief, but it remains and comes back as the hangover wears off.
From what I have seen on these forums, on average the atheists are far better balanced mentally than the theists. The theists often seem to have some serious issues they are trying to avoid dealing with but that are still causing them pain and confusion.

What does Dawkins and his friends offer to alleviate human angst ? Barbiturates or pamphlets describing latest Cosmology theory ?
Nothing, as far as I know. They are not required to, nor do I expect them to. That's why I am suggesting free Opium.

What about you? If I can show you a religion that is far more effective (at dealing with grief and misery) than the one you are currently following, will you willingly delude yourself into following it? I have a few in mind. Some are free, and others require a certain amount of financial investment, but then giving out money can be a wonderful stress reliever.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The moral code made by humans does not apply to God. God's plan is not open to scrutiny by humans. God,by definition,is not a person. He is certainly not your friendly neighbourhood policeman. So how can Jesus be called a sadist, if in a Holy Book written by disciples of Jesus, punishments are held out for not following the Religion described in the Book?

So you agree with me, then, that god's 'goodness' is unknowable and that we have no basis for claiming he is morally good.

As for Jesus, I never claimed he was a sadist. The moral code he puts forth seems to be quite at odds with the seemingly unknowable one that god allegedly operates by.

Originally posted by rwingett
So you agree with me, then, that god's 'goodness' is unknowable and that we have no basis for claiming he is morally good.

As for Jesus, I never claimed he was a sadist. The moral code he puts forth seems to be quite at odds with the seemingly unknowable one that god allegedly operates by.

I had already agreed with you in my post dt.30th May in its 3rd para. We have no basis in claiming whether God's actions are morally good or morally bad.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Because I am not convinced that it is any better than Opium. I do not believe drugs do help people overcome grief. I believe they make it worse. They only make people temporarily forget their grief, but it remains and comes back as the hangover wears off.
From what I have seen on these forums, on average the atheists are far better balanced mentally than ...[text shortened]... rtain amount of financial investment, but then giving out money can be a wonderful stress reliever.

At the outset, your response does appear to be a personal attack on " theists on this post" or on me by implying that they/me are/is mentally unbalanced. Why have you come to such an unscientific conclusion? As for me,let me assure you, I am perfectly sane,have lived a full life due to the Grace of God and blessings of my parents. I am very happy that I was born a Hindu and even more so because I was able to absorb at least some of its principles.So the question remains-do you consider science or faith as offering solace to humans?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
At the outset, your response does appear to be a personal attack on " theists on this post" or on me by implying that they/me are/is mentally unbalanced.

You have misinterpreted my phrase "better balanced mentally" as implying that people who are not "better balanced mentally" are clinically insane. That was not my meaning at all.
What I mean is that atheist on this site, in general (there are exceptions in both groups), seem to be handling" grief and misery of every sort in their daily grind" better than the theists on this site.

Why have you come to such an unscientific conclusion?
Because it is what I have observed. Yes, I agree it is unscientific, but that doesn't stop me from making the observation.

As for me,let me assure you, I am perfectly sane,have lived a full life due to the Grace of God and blessings of my parents.
You mean "due to your delusion in the existence of God" surely? After all, you only hold on to religion for the mind numbing effects?

I am very happy that I was born a Hindu and even more so because I was able to absorb at least some of its principles.
Would you like me to introduce you to a religion that will give you even better principles and make you even happier? After all, you seem to believe your current life is filled with "grief and misery of every sort in [your] daily grind".

So the question remains-do you consider science or faith as offering solace to humans?
I do not consider sciences function to offer solace to humans. Science is about learning about the world around us. Some of us enjoy that for its own end, others enjoy it for the potential benefits it brings.
Does "faith:" bring solace? Yes, in many cases it does, but I am not convinced that it is better than other methods, nor am I convinced that faith on the whole is beneficial. Faith seems to bring anguish, pain, discrimination and death just as often as it brings solace.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I had already agreed with you in my post dt.30th May in its 3rd para. We have no basis in claiming whether God's actions are morally good or morally bad.

If we have a basis for claiming any person's actions -- whether that person is a real person or a fictional character -- are morally good or bad, what is it about God -- whether considered as a real person or a fictional character -- that carves out an exception? What limits our ability with respect to God, that does not limit our ability with respect to ourselves or others? If it is something like 'we do not know all the relevant facts,' that is a well known problem for all moral judgements, yet we feel justified, even obligated, to make moral judgments anyway.

I believe it should be asked of anyone who presents a characterization of God, to justify that God on a moral basis. Putting God outside the scope of moral judgement is a cop-out. And in fact, no theists that I know who believe that God is a person, actually do that. It seems to be a claim that is put forth when someone's God is associated with despicable acts, and is not put forth when that God is associated with honorable acts.

Originally posted by JS357
If we have a basis for claiming any person's actions -- whether that person is a real person or a fictional character -- are morally good or bad, what is it about God -- whether considered as a real person or a fictional character -- that carves out an exception? What limits our ability with respect to God, that does not limit our ability with respect to ourse ...[text shortened]... with despicable acts, and is not put forth when that God is associated with honorable acts.

Who are humans to sit in moral judgement about an entity who does not have any denotation ? If you insist,however, then let that person cast his first stone at God for causing miseries in the world only if he can claim moral high ground ! Such a high moral ground can come only with extraordinarily virtuous and totally selfless nature. Perhaps only Jesus,Buddha,Lord Krishna can claim that high moral ground because they were anyway Gods incarnate. The rest of humanity does not qualify unless bloated egos of some people make them momentarily feel that they are superior to God.
All this talk of calling into questions God's morality is an inversion of a fantastic order I believed was not possible,at least in chess players who are reputed to be thinkers !
Unless,with all my apologies to God,it is clever plan of giving a dog( a God in reverse) a bad name and hanging him!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If you insist,however, then let that person cast his first stone at God for causing miseries in the world only if he can claim moral high ground !

Why? Does the goodness or badness of what you do have something to do with the morality of the accuser? What a strange system of morals you have.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Perhaps only Jesus,Buddha,Lord Krishna can claim that high moral ground because they were anyway Gods incarnate.

Now you seem to be setting up a circular argument:
1. God is good.
2. Jesus, Buddha, and Lord Krishna were God incarnate.
3. Therefore they were good.
4. Therefore they could judge Gods goodness.
You on the other hand seem to have judged the goodness of all of them contrary to what you are arguing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now you seem to be setting up a circular argument:
1. God is good.
2. Jesus, Buddha, and Lord Krishna were God incarnate.
3. Therefore they were good.
4. Therefore they could judge Gods goodness.
You on the other hand seem to have judged the goodness of all of them contrary to what you are arguing.

A faithful has his/her privileges!
True my argument was circular,got carried away by the immensity of the proposition of judging God's morality.