Death of Babies

[Justin108]

As morbid as the title may be, there is something about this that has always confused me in the Christian dogma and that is the fate of dead babies.

Do dead babies go to heaven?

If your answer is no then God is sick and evil for sending innocent babies to hell for absolutely no fault of their own. Sadly enough, Mark 16:16 suggests this and makes no exception for babies.

If your answer is yes then there are several problems with that aswell:
1. It isn't supported by the Bible so this is but wishful thinking
2. Where is the fairness in it? A baby is born and dies and goes straight to heaven while the rest of us have a good chance of ending up in hell. Isn't it unfair for babies to get a sure thing by going straight to heaven? With this in mind, it would be even altruistic to kill a baby since you are saving them from potential hell?

[Ooberman]

why can't deities do as they wish with human babies?

You seem to be of the position that "if God does it, it is automatically good". This is playing with a loaded dice. What if, hypothetically, God told you to rape and murder 9 children, would you do it? Try your best not to dodge this with "Oh but God would never..." that is why I used the word "hypothetical".

Speaking of a loaded question! Please, identify the post on this thread where I even implied that "if God does it, it is automatically good". I have merely enquired as to what standard one is using to determine if a deity is evil and if that standard is consistant. Rather than addressing that question, you asked me how I would respond to a hypothetical request from an ill defined deity. This is just a diversionary extention of the "common sense" arguement. It doesn't matter what I would do. What I do has nothing to do with what standard one would use to determine if a deity is evil. It would only indicate whether I would be willing to do something you find repugnant.

Let's try to stay focused. What is the standard we are to use in determing if it is evil for a deity to require someone to rape and murder 9 children? Mind you it is not the action we should focus on at this point, but the standard by which we are to judge such an action, because no action, be it playing with puppies or raping and murdering 9 children, can be judged without a standard.

I just noticed, you took me out of context when you quoted me. Please, tell me whether you believe that those human societies that sacrificed babies were evil and on what basis you determined that. Please let's not return to the "common sense" argument that you accused me of using earlier and you have used multiple times since. Please, present a standard that we can examine. If that is your personal sensibilities, fine. However, if we are going to go around judging deities, it would behoove us to have a basis on which to make those accusations.

Simple: sacrificing babies is harmful to babies


I have given you my standard. Now give me yours?

I would add to that:

I also have a reason to not sacrifice babies because there are no Gods to appease by killing them.

Even if there are, I don't see how killing babies assuages a God.

Add that to the idea that it harms the baby, then I have reasons - rational reasons - to not kill babies.

So, if something is harmful and there are additional reasons not to do it, AND the reasons for it don't outweigh the other reasons, then this I call "immoral".

[Ooberman]

Notice how the Theists are now in the position they must argue for the morality of slaughtering of infants.

Who knew theism was prone to this quick decline into madness?

[bluethread]

No, it is an answer.

"I don't know" is an answer. "I don't know, but I know (God has reasons x,y z, etc.)" is not.

When on this thread did I make that second statement?

You just insist that one speculate to a conclusion. This is not a requirement of proper discussion.

This is a debate forum.

So, in what way does that require speculation to a conclusion?

That said, you have proposed a loaded question. By using the phrase "Good God", you have biased the question based on how one defines "good". Please, provide a clear defintion of "good" and I will respond to that.

It's not my claim that God is Good. I am responding to claims that God is Good and applying my understanding of "good".

If one defines "Good" as "God", then we are stuck in a vicious circle of Divine Command.

When, on this thread, did I say, "God is Good"? I have merely enquired as to how Justin108 is determining that a deity is evil and if that method that is being used is consistant.

You have also blown off my point with regard to the term "hell". That term does not refer to any deity but the greco/roman deities. I can not speak specifically with regard to whether babies end uo in hell, because I do not follow the greco/roman view.

I honestly can not keep up with the vast amount of different Christianities and Theism's there are.

I've seen your argument about Hell, Gahenna, etc.. but I have seen the counter arguments.

In the end, I look at the words in the Bible and see what it says.

If Jesus says it's a never ending fire, then I read that as an eternal punishment.

By your own admission, then you are not rewadin what it says. If someone says, "never ending fire", you read "eternal punishment". In what language are those the same words.

Now, why would any deity send babies to such a place, there are a myriad of reasons. Infant sacrifice has not been uncommon among the religions of the world, even the nontheistic ones. Therefore, if humans can sacrifice human babies based on their view of the existance or nonexistance of a deity, why can't deities do as they wish with human babies?

So, your argument against killing children is that it might be Good and we might have a Good reason to do it?

I don't think I've ever seen someone argue as you have.


So, if you see infant sacrifice, your instinct isn't to think it's evil, but that God must want it?

Again, you have a reading problem. What you wrote is not what I said. What I am saying is, without a verifiable standard, there is no way to make a judgement one wa or the other. If we are judging by personal instinct, then Hannibal Lector's judgement is just as good as yours. How are we to determine who's instinct is the valid one?

[bluethread]

Let's try to stay focused. What is the standard we are to use in determing if it is evil for a deity to require someone to rape and murder 9 children? Mind you it is not the action we should focus on at this point, but the standard by which we are to judge such an action, because no action, be it playing with puppies or raping and murdering 9 children, can be judged without a standard.

I am trying to establish YOUR standard. Your standard seems to be that God is the standard of what is right and wrong. So if God orders the rape and death of 9 children, then it would be a good thing (assuming God is the standard of right and wrong).

Since, you are the one who is saying that a deity is sick and evil. Shouldn't you be the one defining your terms? If you wish to withdraw your assessment and start fresh with me setting the standard, then that is fine. However, I am not going to just ingore it, if you start interjecting some other undefined standard, as if it is not the standard I have proposed that we are examining.

[bluethread]

why can't deities do as they wish with human babies?

You seem to be of the position that "if God does it, it is automatically good". This is playing with a loaded dice. What if, hypothetically, God told you to rape and murder 9 children, would you do it? Try your best not to dodge this with "Oh but God would never..." that is why I used the word "hypothetical".

I think he goes further. He is saying that not only might Gods have good reasons to kill babies, but that we might have Good reasons to kill babies to please Gods.

Now, I'm sure this might work for some people - and, it's true I can't disagree with the logic - except I would require a law (as a citizen) that would require people to prove their God exists and wants babies sacrificed to them before people go killing babies...

After all, if one of those religions is wrong, then we have a monumental tragedy on our hands.

For example, if the Aztec religion is wrong, then there were a lot of babies killed for nothing.

bluethread is saying that we have to suspend our judgment. Maybe it was all Good?

I'll let other decide if this is an acceptable moral position. I find it chilling.

I find it a blatent misrepresentation, designed to impune the negative by stating it as the converse. So far, I have not proposed anything other than that we should have a standard by which to make judgements. It is you an Justin108 who have made the judgements. Let me make this clear by restating your example. For example, if scientific humanism is wrong with regard to the nature of the fetus, then there were a lot of babies killed for the convenience of sexual pleasure. One can insist that this is not a far comparison, because "fetuses are not babies". This latter is nothing more than an arbitrary standard. However, it is a standard. Which proves the point that judgements can not be made without a standard and standards are subject to examination.

So, please, state a standard and stand for examination or stand down.

[Ooberman]

Let's try to stay focused. What is the standard we are to use in determing if it is evil for a deity to require someone to rape and murder 9 children? Mind you it is not the action we should focus on at this point, but the standard by which we are to judge such an action, because no action, be it playing with puppies or raping and murdering 9 children, can be judged without a standard.

I am trying to establish YOUR standard. Your standard seems to be that God is the standard of what is right and wrong. So if God orders the rape and death of 9 children, then it would be a good thing (assuming God is the standard of right and wrong).

Since, you are the one who is saying that a deity is sick and evil. Shouldn't you be the one defining your terms? If you wish to withdraw your assessment and start fresh with me setting the standard, then that is fine. However, I am not going to just ingore it, if you start interjecting some other undefined standard, as if it is not the standard I have proposed that we are examining.

We have established our standards. The ball is in your court.


However, since this seems to be a dead end, let me propose it doesn't matter.

That is, yes, if your God requires dead babies, then you ought to provide your God with dead babies.

This is the argument and you are now supporting the one I have made.

If you see that God doesn't mind killing babies (which you seem to be arguing, since you have shifted to asking what our standard is, and not the defense of your position), AND you know that babies go to Heaven, then you should be killing babies en masse.

Right?


What I am trying to establish is not whether it is right or wrong, objectively, to kill babies, but whether we SHOULD be killing babies.

See the difference?

1. If babies go to Heaven if murdered, then we should kill them rather than let them live with the risk of not accepting the right Religion.
2. If God likes us to kill babies, then we ought to kill babies.
3. If there is no God, there is no reason to kill babies.

There is no sense of morality in the first 2 except that they please God because they bring souls to Him, or they appease Him.


Since bluethread seems to be willing to discuss this, I think it's worthwhile. After all, I imagine the Aztecs had these discussions and they concluded that God like babies to be killed. Therefore, it is Good to kill babies, but because there is a reason: God liked it.


So, I'd like bluethread to give us his argument for why we should or shouldn't kill babies according to HIS moral standard (God) who he will be speaking for in this thread.

[bluethread]

In fact, what bluethread ahs done is looped around to not argue against killing babies, but since he can't find a way out, has declared the killing of babies possibly Good, so therefore there is no problem with Christianity.

This is a valid strategy, BTW.

1. Killing babies is Bad
2. Any religion that claims to kill babies, or has God killing babies is Bad.
3. Religion x kills babies,
Therefore,
4. Religion x is Bad.

bluethread is saying "hold up.. who said killing babies is bad?"

This is not desperation, it is basis logic. Before one can come to a conclusion, one must establish the premise. I am not looping around, this has been my question all along. Also, you have again misstated the facts.

The argument went like this.

Justin108: It is evil for humans to kill babies, implying that it is always evil for babies to die.

Bluethread: Why is a deity required to stop babies from dieing.

Justin108: You are presenting the falacy of special cases, implying that there is no significant difference between men and deities.

Bluethread: How do we know that men and deities are the same?

Justin108: Common sense.

Bluethread: Wikipedia denotes "common sense" as a form of the falacy of special cases"

Justin108: since for a time followed by other "common sense" defenses with not explanation of how one knows that men and deites are the same.

[Ooberman]

why can't deities do as they wish with human babies?

You seem to be of the position that "if God does it, it is automatically good". This is playing with a loaded dice. What if, hypothetically, God told you to rape and murder 9 children, would you do it? Try your best not to dodge this with "Oh but God would never..." that is why I used the word "hypothetical".

I think he goes further. He is saying that not only might Gods have good reasons to kill babies, but that we might have Good reasons to kill babies to please Gods.

Now, I'm sure this might work for some people - and, it's true I can't disagree with the logic - except I would require a law (as a citizen) that would require people to prove their God exists and wants babies sacrificed to them before people go killing babies...

After all, if one of those religions is wrong, then we have a monumental tragedy on our hands.

For example, if the Aztec religion is wrong, then there were a lot of babies killed for nothing.

bluethread is saying that we have to suspend our judgment. Maybe it was all Good?

I'll let other decide if this is an acceptable moral position. I find it chilling.

I find it a blatent misrepresentation, designed to impune the negative by stating it as the converse. So far, I have not proposed anything other than that we should have a standard by which to make judgements. It is you an Justin108 who have made the judgements. Let me make this clear by restating your example. For example, if scientific humanism is wrong with regard to the nature of the fetus, then there were a lot of babies killed for the convenience of sexual pleasure. One can insist that this is not a far comparison, because "fetuses are not babies". This latter is nothing more than an arbitrary standard. However, it is a standard. Which proves the point that judgements can not be made without a standard and standards are subject to examination.

So, please, state a standard and stand for examination or stand down.

This is a different subject and a fallacy. It's called a tu quoque.

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

1. Under theism, killing babies is justified (per OP)
2. Under atheism, killing babies is justified (bluethreads claim)
3 Therefore, we don't have to worry about killing babies.

It's a form of a red herring because you are trying to indict some other position as opposed to defending yours.

[Ooberman]

In fact, what bluethread ahs done is looped around to not argue against killing babies, but since he can't find a way out, has declared the killing of babies possibly Good, so therefore there is no problem with Christianity.

This is a valid strategy, BTW.

1. Killing babies is Bad
2. Any religion that claims to kill babies, or has God killing babies is Bad.
3. Religion x kills babies,
Therefore,
4. Religion x is Bad.

bluethread is saying "hold up.. who said killing babies is bad?"

This is not desperation, it is basis logic. Before one can come to a conclusion, one must establish the premise. I am not looping around, this has been my question all along. Also, you have again misstated the facts.

The argument went like this.

Justin108: It is evil for humans to kill babies, implying that it is always evil for babies to die.

Bluethread: Why is a deity required to stop babies from dieing.

Justin108: You are presenting the falacy of special cases, implying that there is no significant difference between men and deities.

Bluethread: How do we know that men and deities are the same?

Justin108: Common sense.

Bluethread: Wikipedia denotes "common sense" as a form of the falacy of special cases"

Justin108: since for a time followed by other "common sense" defenses with not explanation of how one knows that men and deites are the same.

Very well, let's look again at the OP and consider the questions
at hand:


For what reason should babies be killed?

1. For God
2. For humans

I think we need to flesh out both.

Right now, the OP is addressing the theistic side of the argument.

If you would like to address the atheistic side, please start another thread.

[bluethread]

Simple: sacrificing babies is harmful to babies


I have given you my standard. Now give me yours?

Excuse, me while I catch up with the hectoring.

Ok, killing cattle is harmful to cattle, but men do that. Why should a deity view the killing of babies any differently?