Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[southern cross]

<snip>
......and if they have an explanation for what YOU think is "immorality," you must accept it. After all, you don't get to say 'God is evil because I don't believe in Him."

That's just silly.
<snip>

But I do get to say the god of their books is a hypocrite and they don't get to define morality.

[East of Eden]

,snip to here>
I know many Christians claim "You can't judge God by human standards." My answer to that is "Oh, yes I can, and I do!" One method I use when reading the Bible is, every time I see the word "God," I substitute "Tribal Chief." That removes all the baggage that goes with the word "God" and makes analysis of the text much more objective. Try reading the story of the Virgin Birth in that way!

But you can't!

We know the difference that knowledge makes right here in this life.

I keep using the examples of doctors and firemen and such, as well as cops, and I feel like I'm presenting a silent power point presentation in a room full of blind people. Worse...in a room full of people who can see fine--if they'd open their eyes,.

Look...we allow brain surgeons to take off skulls and mess around in the 'grey matter,' put people back together and sew them up. We not only allow it, but celebrate it and give them honor and respect; they KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

How much sense would it make for a ten year old to make moral judgments about that surgeon when all he can see is the saw descending...but not all the reasons for it or the outcome?

At the same time, nobody in his right mind would let that ten year old have a bone saw to play with.

The general response is...but we aren't children...

Ok, that same brain surgeon...and a Democrat just leaving the polls where he voted for the very first time ever. He's going to college next year. Would you let HIM make a moral judgment call about what that surgeon SHOULD do, or should HAVE done?

Would you give HIM a bone saw and access to your child's brain matter?

Nobody with any sense would do this. We don't judge cops by the same standards; WE aren't allowed to put handcuffs on people and lock them up. If we aren't jet pilots, we aren't going to be allowed in the cockpit, flying. There are examples after examples of different standards applied to different people, BECAUSE we know that these guys have more information than we do, more skill...whatever.

They know what they are doing.

And with God, we ALSO know that, even if you and I don't know 'for certain' that there is an after life to which we all go upon our deaths, the Creator of the Universe certainly does; He created it, after all.


Therefore, no, you can't judge Him by the same standards you judge a 'tribal chief.' Tribal chiefs are mortal humans who don't know any more about what happens upon our deaths than we do.

On Tuesday some guy is going to take a long pointed instrument and shove it into my hip bone, cracking it, getting a piece of it and some marrow. I'm not only going to allow this, I'm actually paying him to do it. I expect that it's going to hurt. I've never had anybody tell me that this procedure does NOT hurt like crazy, but it has to be done.

And you know what? For this assault and injury, this guy not only is NOT going to be criticized by anybody, he's going to be paid very well indeed, and thanked for doing it.

Because he knows what he is doing,
Because he may well be saving my life by so doing.

but if anybody who didn't have his qualifications tried it, very long prison sentences would ensue.

you understand this. I do, Every body does...but at the same time you will NOT consider that the Creator of the Universe AND us AND the afterlife might just know more about things than you do, and probably should not be judged by the same standards?

I mean, REALLY?

REALLY is the problem here. Your argument sounds very sincere, logical and convincing, except for one fatal flaw. Its validity depends totally on the real existence of such a God, with all the properties your faith attributes to him. Without that one critical point, the argument collapses.

I don't mean to argue against your God, and I am personally pleased that you have him. My argument is against the actions of the God as described in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament, with more than a hundred instances of senseless atrocities and mass murders. I think any objective reading of the OT, without any previous pious theistic indoctrination, would reveal a vain, vindictive, petty, jealous, cruel, arbitrary, murderous, etc, etc, image of a primitive tribal chieftain, glorified by the standards of that time by self-serving priests writing for gullible congregations. And to impress other tribes with "Our god can whup your god!"

I hope all goes well with your hip.

God's actions are only senseless and arbitrary if you have no concept of sin. We are all deserving of death because of sin, the wonder is so many of us are spared. And I don't see how you as a materialist can call anything right or wrong, I mean to you, we are simply grown up germs, right?

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

No it doesn't, it means youths and was used other places in the Bible for men up to 39 years old. Do you think a group of 39 year olds could threaten an old man?

The OT was originally written in ancient Hebrew, but most of us here today are dependent on translations for our understanding of the Bible. The popular King James version uses "little children." Because the Jews originally wrote the OT, it seems reasonable that a Jewish translation might be closest to the original indended meaning. I am not Jewish, but my copy of "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES According to the Masoretic Text," published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, also uses "little children."

As has been said, the original word used means 'youths', and was used in another context to refer to a 39-year old.

I agree that the text does not specifically say that God "commanded" the slaughter of the children, but in all versions I have read, the bears kill the children immediately following Elisha's curse of the children "in the name of the Lord." Is this just some random coincidence?

Perhaps God gave Elisha power that he in his free will misused.

Incidentally, I am a little surprised that any Christian today would attempt to justify the slaughter of children, of any age, as punishment for making fun of a bald man by using the excuse that they were not young children. Is this the doctrine of your church, or of any Christian sect you can cite?

The doctrine of the church is that God can do with His creation as He sees fit. The Bible stands over me and judges me, not the reverse.

Isaiah 58: 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my aways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Just one more question: Are you bald?

Not even close.

[dianaiad]

REALLY is the problem here. Your argument sounds very sincere, logical and convincing, except for one fatal flaw. Its validity depends totally on the real existence of such a God, with all the properties your faith attributes to him. Without that one critical point, the argument collapses.

No it doesn't. You are shifting the goal posts.

In arguing that we can judge God the way we do ourselves, you are actually accepting His existence, if only for the sake of the argument. It does not change when you put 'IF God Exists and He exists as we claim He does, THEN...." because fictional or not, you have to take the properties of the character as defined for Him.

Did my arguments about the brain surgeon and the pilot depend upon my providing names, birthdates and official records? Or did the classification 'brain surgeon' mean things that come with the title, irrespective of any individual holding it?

Now you might not believe that God exists....but IF He does, then the qualities assigned to Him also do, and it is those qualities that you have to judge the character by. Certainly you have no right to assign to, or remove from a God qualities to a character YOU didn't invent; you run into copyright issues, for one thing.

I don't mean to argue against your God, and I am personally pleased that you have him. My argument is against the actions of the God as described in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament, with more than a hundred instances of senseless atrocities and mass murders. I think any objective reading of the OT, without any previous pious theistic indoctrination, would reveal a vain, vindictive, petty, jealous, cruel, arbitrary, murderous, etc, etc, image of a primitive tribal chieftain, glorified by the standards of that time by self-serving priests writing for gullible congregations. And to impress other tribes with "Our god can whup your god!"

Well....I have my own theories about that. Y'see, I'm not a biblical inerrentist. I understand that God may have inspired it, but men wrote those books and more men decided which writings would be included in it. All the writings are NOT equal. For instance, I do love the Song of Songs...but nobody can convince me that it is an allegory of God's love for mankind.

I'll also freely admit that the OT God was a vengeful and strict Judge. However, I have the sneakiest suspicion that most of the stories YOU refer to as horrific were a case of the winner writing the history, and your characterizing of those decision makers as 'tribal chiefs' is more accurate than most Christians want to admit. When I deal with the OT God, I tend to go straight to the events that GOD was described as directly responsible for; the Flood, perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to look with a very jaundiced eye those stories where 'God commanded' and MEN did.

I hope all goes well with your hip.

Thanks...the hip will be fine. It's the REST of me that is in question. I won't ask for prayers from anybody who doesn't believe in 'em, but a couple of good thoughts wouldn't be unwelcome.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Perhaps God gave Elisha power that he in his free will misused.

Wow! Blaming the slaughter of the children on a "misuse" of Elisha's free will is a pretty far-fetched interpretation of the story, but at least it implies that you do recognize that the act was wrong. For a Christian, that is a giant step in the right direction.

The doctrine of the church is that God can do with His creation as He sees fit. The Bible stands over me and judges me, not the reverse.

Jawohl, Herr Führer! As the defendants at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials often said, "Befehl ist Befehl."

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

God's actions are only senseless and arbitrary if you have no concept of sin. We are all deserving of death because of sin, the wonder is so many of us are spared. And I don't see how you as a materialist can call anything right or wrong, I mean to you, we are simply grown up germs, right?

Some of us grown-up germs have developed brains of our own. Of course you will say that is because of the Knowledge the serpent offered us in the Garden of Eden. You may be right. Either way, I am quite capable of judging good and evil, thank you.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

No it doesn't. You are shifting the goal posts.

In arguing that we can judge God the way we do ourselves, you are actually accepting His existence, if only for the sake of the argument. It does not change when you put 'IF God Exists and He exists as we claim He does, THEN...." because fictional or not, you have to take the properties of the character as defined for Him.

You may be right. My argument may have been a little inconsistent becsuse we are talking about two different Gods here. I had already said that I was arguing against the God as described in the Bible, while you are talking about a God which you perceive as real. I will try to be a little more careful to distinguish between the two.

Thanks...the hip will be fine. It's the REST of me that is in question. I won't ask for prayers from anybody who doesn't believe in 'em, but a couple of good thoughts wouldn't be unwelcome.

I will offer a prayer anyway, just in case.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

I'll also freely admit that the OT God was a vengeful and strict Judge. However, I have the sneakiest suspicion that most of the stories YOU refer to as horrific were a case of the winner writing the history, and your characterizing of those decision makers as 'tribal chiefs' is more accurate than most Christians want to admit. When I deal with the OT God, I tend to go straight to the events that GOD was described as directly responsible for; the Flood, perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to look with a very jaundiced eye those stories where 'God commanded' and MEN did.

Yes, history is written by the winners and any atrocity can be easily justified by passing the responsibility on to a God who, by definition, can do no wrong and is not required to explain his actions.

The New Testament is a little different. In my opinion, it appears to have been rather inconsistently written after the fact by apologists and salesmen for the new and growing Christian churches, who needed a "God-story" to attract converts. Virgin Birth? Empty Tomb? No religion in the area at the time could be without such frills.

Even then, much of what passes for Christianity was created even later by self-serving theologians and has only the loosest connection with scripture. The Trinity? Gobbledygook to make "One God" out of two or three and justify calling Jesus "God." Original Sin? What better way to threaten the masses with hell if they don't join our church to be "SAVED!!!" Hallelujah!!!

[dianaiad]

dianaiad wrote:

I'll also freely admit that the OT God was a vengeful and strict Judge. However, I have the sneakiest suspicion that most of the stories YOU refer to as horrific were a case of the winner writing the history, and your characterizing of those decision makers as 'tribal chiefs' is more accurate than most Christians want to admit. When I deal with the OT God, I tend to go straight to the events that GOD was described as directly responsible for; the Flood, perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to look with a very jaundiced eye those stories where 'God commanded' and MEN did.

Yes, history is written by the winners and any atrocity can be easily justified by passing the responsibility on to a God who, by definition, can do no wrong and is not required to explain his actions.

The New Testament is a little different. In my opinion, it appears to have been rather inconsistently written after the fact by apologists and salesmen for the new and growing Christian churches, who needed a "God-story" to attract converts. Virgin Birth? Empty Tomb? No religion in the area at the time could be without such frills.

Even then, much of what passes for Christianity was created even later by self-serving theologians and has only the loosest connection with scripture. The Trinity? Gobbledygook to make "One God" out of two or three and justify calling Jesus "God." Original Sin? What better way to threaten the masses with hell if they don't join our church to be "SAVED!!!" Hallelujah!!!

Yeah, well...what can I say about that?

We Mormon types did think that Christianity went off the rails fairly early on, and we don't buy Original Sin (at least in the way everybody else does) or the Trinity, either.

We do, however, go with the virgin birth and the resurrection. Those are sorta important to us, given Who we think Jesus is and all...

[East of Eden]

dianaiad wrote:

I'll also freely admit that the OT God was a vengeful and strict Judge. However, I have the sneakiest suspicion that most of the stories YOU refer to as horrific were a case of the winner writing the history, and your characterizing of those decision makers as 'tribal chiefs' is more accurate than most Christians want to admit. When I deal with the OT God, I tend to go straight to the events that GOD was described as directly responsible for; the Flood, perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to look with a very jaundiced eye those stories where 'God commanded' and MEN did.

Yes, history is written by the winners and any atrocity can be easily justified by passing the responsibility on to a God who, by definition, can do no wrong and is not required to explain his actions.

The New Testament is a little different. In my opinion, it appears to have been rather inconsistently written after the fact by apologists and salesmen for the new and growing Christian churches, who needed a "God-story" to attract converts. Virgin Birth? Empty Tomb? No religion in the area at the time could be without such frills.

Even then, much of what passes for Christianity was created even later by self-serving theologians and has only the loosest connection with scripture. The Trinity? Gobbledygook to make "One God" out of two or three and justify calling Jesus "God." Original Sin? What better way to threaten the masses with hell if they don't join our church to be "SAVED!!!" Hallelujah!!!

Nonsense, who gained by speading a false story when the spreaders received only persecution and death? I want in on that action, LOL. As Paul said, if Christianity were not true, or only for this world, the apostles were the most miserable of men. SOMETHING changed the apostles from a small band of frightened men (Peter wouldn't ever confess Jesus before a servant girl) to a group no power on earth could silence. IMHO the Resurrection is that something. You are alleging a vast conspiracy with NO evidence, how about a secret memo at least from an early Pope X saying 'today we're going to make up the story of the loaves and fishes' or something?

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.