Sketches on Atheism

Mischief, hoop tricks, and spectacular moral failures

jumping-through-hoopsI’ll admit it: I find a certain mischievous (humanist) pleasure in pointing out the nonsense that permeates the Abrahamic religions. Faith (belief without evidence) is little more than an outrageous excuse for ignorance, and when peddled as something worthy of societal application it deserves all the mockery a mindful monkey can muster. As Jefferson outlined in a letter to Francis Van der Kemp belittling Christian doctrine (30th July, 1816): “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” I agree, and that brings me to one of the most implausible hoops a theist has to jump through to believe in an all bells-and-whistles Omni-everything deity: Objectivism; the fountainhead, an apologist will say, of all human morality. Now, ignoring the fact that empathy and a strong sense of fair play has been observed and tested in many of our mammalian cousins, cheerleaders for a sentient, thoughtful, wilful, invisible god profess that morality is issued by (and only by) said celestial being and that these laws are, as such, immutable. That is to say, to believe in a sentient, thoughtful, wilful, invisible god is to also believe in the rather ambitious notion of objective truth; a set of unmovable, precision tooled maxims which should (having been forged by most-excellent god) penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Self-evidently this is a ludicrous claim, swiftly debunked by our modern-day repulsion to biblically sanctioned slavery.

In a word, the idea of god-given objective truth is nothing but theological gibberish; a baseless philosophical meandering heard but never seen, forever threatening to walk on stage, but never arriving. The simple fact is not a single objective truth has ever been established in any human arena, and this has led rationally minded individuals to conclude there is nothing further to the morality question than levels of purely human (entirely terrestrial) subjectivism; abstract scores ranging from the seasonal truisms of street fashion to the almost-objective truth that something like plagiarism (moreso than even murder) is almost-always morally inexcusable. Said in another way, the bible is no more a source of objective moral guidance than Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an industrial design manual for ornate Shāng Dynasty ritual wine vessels. Indeed, read the bible cover to cover and anyone curious enough to look will find just one single piece of practical moral advice inside all its sixty-six books; a lone precept approaching something resembling an objective truth: the Golden Rule. As a moral directive it’s certainly worthy of our praise and under normal operating conditions a memo all people should strive to practice. That being said, the so-named Golden Rule fails spectacularly to meet its own moral calling. The Golden Rule is plagiarised. The concept dates back to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE) “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.” It also emerged in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1780 BCE), as well as in 6th century BCE Taoism, “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss,”  in 5th century BCE Confucianism, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself,”  in 4th century BCE Mohism, “For one would do for others as one would do for oneself,” and was articulated by the Greek, Pittacus (640–568 BCE), who said: “Do not do to your neighbour what you would take ill from him.”

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but pilfering another man’s idea and passing it off as your own (without credit or reference to the original source) is NOT exactly doing unto others what you would want them do unto you… and it’s certainly not the behaviour becoming of man-god/god-man.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Mischief, hoop tricks, and spectacular moral failures

  1. I find it deeply ironic that you are able to immediately recognize fallacious objectivism in religion, but your own dependence on objectivism completely evades you.

    Have you ever taken the Outsider Test for Faith on your own belief system?

    Like

    • Firstly, only religion claims objective truth, and it’s clearly BS… meaning another piece of evidence for the non-existence of any gods.

      Secondly, what belief system? I, unlike you, have no Faith (belief WITHOUT evidence). I rely on subjectively predictable truisms, like the sun coming up tomorrow based on it rising today, just as it did yesterday. That is to say, a pattern of evidence.

      Like

      • By your definition, neither of us have faith.

        Your belief system is antitheistic fundamentalism. You believe that your personal interpretive metric represents undeniable objective truth.

        Like

      • What drivel. I do however always find it amusing when a theist tries to label the a-theist “religious.” Smacks of desperation and uncertainty in their own position… which is perfectly understandable. It’s not exactly a tenable position to hold.

        PeW, you are basing your entire opinion of my life on this blog, which has a single theme: Sketches on Atheism. You do, of course, see where I’m going with this….

        Like

      • *re-reads comments*

        Hmm, I didn’t see where I labeled you “religious”. Care to point it out?

        Fundamentalism isn’t religious or irreligious; it’s a way of looking at evidence and the world.

        I certainly don’t purport to know anything about your life other than what I can tell from seeing the way you reason.

        Like

      • You can’t judge my reason on the way i approach the unreasonableness of religion. I ridicule it, just like Jefferson demanded. I mock it for its childlessness and for encouraging ignorance. It’s an extreme example, like animal cruelty. You don’t fight a bastard who tortures dogs with reasonable actions… you throttle the fucker.

        Like

      • It’s a simple question. Surely it’s not too complicated for you.

        If Christianity is the most plausible explanation of history, does that not imply belief in YHWH is logical and reasoned?

        Like

      • Right, i always did love that part of the bible which outlines the premise of Natural Selection. I particularly liked Jesus’ explanation of natural mutations in biological organisms. His definition of genetic information transferal was brilliant.

        So, back to the post… don’t you think it immoral to have stolen the Golden Rule and not given credit to its original authors?

        Like

      • As far as I’ve got so far: “if Christianity is the most plausible explanation of history …” falls at the word ‘if’.

        Christianity is no explanation of history—at best it’s an excuse (a pathetic attempt actually) at rationalising/justifying some very unpleasant actions and actors. For the undiscerning, gullible, and desperate.

        Like

    • I’m blown away P&W that you came to the notion that “Christianity is the most plausible explanation of history”. Considering it evolved long after recorded history began you would have to dismiss quite a bit.

      Then again, if you are monkey-backing Xianity onto its predecessor, Judaism, then it really isn’t Christianity being the most plausible explanation of history. It would be Judeo-christianity serving as your source of human history. Either way, both are seriously flawed and for someone who wants to be taken seriously I would think you’d have defended the faith in some other fashion than expecting critically thinking people to buy into the fantastic imagination of ancient people who once thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

      Like

      • It was a discussion we were having about the prophesied return of Christ based on the post I wrote ‘Parousia’, and the point I was trying to make about Christianity essentially having its roots in Ancient Egypt, and to the religion of the Pharaoh Akhenaten to be specific. I said you would probably know something about it.

        Like

      • The Ark knows more… he was there! 🙂

        The Code of Hammurabi, though, influenced Judaic thought more. They stole it almost in its entirety and slapped a new authors name on it: Moses. Plagiarising assholes.

        Like

      • 🙂 I’m sure he does!
        I know that the Lord’s Prayer appears at the entrance of Arks Temple (don’t remember specifics), predating Christ by a couple of thousand years at least. The Ancient Egyptians weren’t from those parts originally either, it was recently discovered that they were a splinter group (don’t you just love those splinter groups – I know I do) that have their roots in the Hatushite empire in middle Asia.

        Like

      • Unhinged, but obviously too much of a coward to check out the post I wrote in response. Says a lot I think. I still won as far as I’m concerned. I’m guessing the debate raged on for you then?

        Like

      • I nailed him/her/it pretty well. I’m told he/she/it then created a new thread in an attempt to start it all again and wrote a small book to kick things off. I never bothered to check it out.

        Like

      • I haven’t actually been back to that original thread to check out what transpired after I got bored and left. I shall have to check out your small book, just for a laugh 🙂

        Like

      • Wow! I’ve just revisited that thread. Well that was an entertaining, educational, and total waste of a half hour! He/she/it didn’t like being cornered to much! What a contrary nut-job!

        Like

      • Well played, very well played. He/she/it certainly did well to evade your question about slavery. I think in answering he/she/it obviously realised that they would be contradicting themselves. I wonder what he/she/it was alluding to when he/she/it stated that the meaning of slavery in the scriptures wasn’t the same as the modern meaning? What other meaning could it be? The mind truly boggles, and that man/woman/thing fought like someone possessed. If I owned a golden Fedora, I’d loan it to you for a day! 😉

        Like

  2. Hey John, good post. 🙂

    Not to intercede too deeply on your discussion with P&W, but answering this question may help.

    If there was evidence of a supernatural being would you change your worldview?

    If JZ, was fundamentalist he would not, but I suspect that if given reasonable proof of said existence he would change his mind.

    Like

    • Of course. Absolutes are irrational. I’m not rigidly attached to anything and will proceed in purview that new information could well change any opinion or belief. PeW is a former Fundi (a Ken Ham devotee) so he strays sometimes back into his rigid mindset then projects that onto others. He means well, though…

      Like

    • I don’t know about anyone else, but if there was evidence of such a supernatural being it would not change squit for me, my world view would still be my own based upon my own assumptions.

      Like

      • “Only the Sith deal in absolutes!” Obi-Wan Kenobi.

        Does it make me a fundie, that even if I was presented with overwhelming evidence of the existance of the Abrahamic god, I would not worship such an immoral god? And I am not referring to plagiarism, but to genosides, homophobia, promoting slavery, demanding faith, demanding worship, sacrificial animals and humans, plus general narcisism, tribal moralism and staggeringly abominable irresponsibility.

        I hold my belief back from any gods (even the nicer ones) untill some actual evidence is presented.

        Like

      • I’m with you on that, Raut. I would refuse to yield to the god of the bible. In fact, executing that beast for his crimes would be the morally correct thing to do.

        As Richard Dawkins so wonderfully put it, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

        Like

    • IF there were evidence of a supernatural being it would certainly change my own world view … still waitin’, dammit …

      Like

      • Really. A man would be a fool not to accept evidence. But I think it will be a very looooooooooong wait …

        Like

      • Good thing I’m not a man then! If there was evidence I would consider it, but from my point of view I would have no need to succumb to another’s will, divine or not. I am about as good as it gets for me. But then I do create my own reality, so if such an entity were to appear, it will have been my choice on some level of consciousness anyway 😀

        Like

      • Can’t argue with that.

        As ol’ Scrooge says to the ghost in Dickens’s ‘Christmas Carol’:
        “You could be a bit of undigested beef, even … yep, there’s more of gravy than the grave about you, Spook!” (or words to that effect).

        Like

      • Aw you say such nice things! However, as I see it I am less mad than someone who is willing to accede responsibility for who they are to someone who claims to be divine, proof or not. I live my life knowing that my sense of integrity remains in tact because of what I believe. I don’t give myself the convenience of blaming someone else when things go tits up.

        Like

      • Neither do I. But I’m willing to admit I could be wrong if some bloke walks across the lake to me … hasn’t happened yet, I doubt very much that it ever would; but if ever it did I’d be lying to my own eyes to deny them.

        It would take more faith than I’m capable of to deny a ‘miracle’ if one ever occurred. To me. For real.

        Like

      • @John – RE: “In fact, executing that beast for his crimes would be the morally correct thing to do.”

        Can’t agree – how much better to let him live his eternity in total obscurity?

        Like

      • No justice there … all three of Him would sing Their praises to Each Other for ever. He?She/It would revel in that (no bloody-minded atheists left to rock the boat).

        Like

  3. I seriously appreciate your blog, and with permission, may reference/paraphrase/build-upon the ideas as I go about the process of constructing my book.

    Of course, I also enjoy the opportunity to indulge the famous PeW/Zande exchanges. Priceless.

    Like

      • Thank you ever so kindly.

        Yes I do, I am currently drawing up the table of contents, and I’m meeting with a local group of skeptics to flesh out the details. (Of course, I still have to finish my thesis at university, but once that’s done, I hope to pound out the book.)

        I’ve never read The God Delusion, but I hear it’s kind of smirky, don’t know if I’ll go with that tone, but I might include a spicy chapter, for entertainment purposes.

        Like

  4. Ah, this is a perfect read for bedtime reading. You do have a way with words that I enjoy ” the bible is no more a source of objective moral guidance than Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an industrial design manual for ornate Shāng Dynasty ritual wine vessels” – that’s just fantastic, and a close second is… “mammalian cousins cheerleaders.” 🙂 Thanks, Mr. Zande… It’s always a pleasure. Cheers.

    Like

  5. Come on. The Bible is full of useful information. How to sacrifice animals, which animals to sacrifice. The proper technique on how to beat your slaves . How to pimp out ones daughters etc

    Like

  6. One could say that one of the many fundamental differences between theology and science is that theology vigorously rejects any truth but its own dogma, whereas science constantly reinvents the truth.

    Like

  7. I’m a bit confused here. You argument seems to undercut itself. Moral Objectivism is the belief that there is an objective moral law that all moral decisions can be judged by. That is, the belief that Good and Evil are real concepts, that some actions are by their very nature good (regardless of what people believe about them) and some actions are by their very nature evil (even if everyone agrees they are good). Moral Objectivists believe that these standards of morality apply to everyone, regardless of culture, and some believe that all humans are, at least in part, aware of this greater moral law.

    You “refute” this by pointing out that many cultures, especially the ancient Egyptians, believed in the same moral law as modern and ancient Christians believe is true. I’m sorry, but this seems to be an evidence in support of Moral Objectivism. It implies that the Golden Rule, on some level, is a moral law that transcends culture and time, something we would except any objective moral law to be. The fact that Egyptians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Christians, and religions throughout history all agree on it is exactly what we would expect to see if Moral Objectivism is true.

    So where, exactly, do you show that objective moral law does not exist?

    Like

    • I understand you’re confused, Mark, and I sympathise. If you’d actually read the post you’d see I was using the Golden Rule to demonstrate that the authors of Luke (and/or Jesus himself, if he actually existed, which is highly doubtful) were immoral for breaking the very premise of the otherwise fine piece of advice by plagiarising it. In fact, the vast majority of Christians are guilty of this, believing the Golden Rule is Christian, while it’s little more than stolen idea, used without credit to is progenitors.

      The point about there being no objective truth was made by citing biblically sanctioned slavery. Slavery is, of course, morally repugnant in the eyes of civilized men and women but not apparently in the eyes of the Middle Eastern deity idolized by members of the Abrahamic faiths who not only sanctions it (Lev.25:44-6, Exod.21:2-8, Eph.6:5, Col.3:22) but even gives specific instruction on how to deal with slaves, including the best way to murder one (Exod.21:7-8, Luke.12:42-8, Exod.21:20-1, Deut.15:17). The larger point was that no objective truth has ever been established in any human arena…. Just levels of fluid subjectivism.

      Like

      • I still have problems here. First off, can we really call the Christian use of the Golden Rule plagiarism? Firstly, Jesus never claimed that the Golden Rule was his idea. He claimed that it is moral truth. If I say “It’s wrong to murder innocent children” am I committing plagiarism by not also noting every other person that has ever believed it is wrong to murder innocent children before I did? Now if I said “I believe it’s wrong to murder innocent children, and that’s my own completely original idea that I came up with myself” you might have a case there. But Jesus never made any such claims.

        Your argument about slavery is a good case against Biblical morality being accurate, assuming that slavery is an absolute objective evil in all cases. But I don’t see how it refutes the idea of Moral Objectivism. It might work as an argument against the Bible, or against Christianity, but I don’t see how it’s relevant as to whether or not moral laws exist at all.

        Finally saying that “no objective truth has ever been established in any human arena” requires something more than just your own assertion. What exactly do you mean by that? What evidence do you have that this is the case?

        Like

      • Not in the eyes of your god or your religion! Or, may i say, your political party: “Rape is kinda like the weather. If its inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” (Clayton Williams, Republican Candidate for Texas Governor)

        Like

      • If that’s true then I must be a bad Christian. Still, I believe rape is wrong. Even if Christianity claims it is okay, I still believe it is wrong. And even if Christianity is just a load of hooey, that says nothing about whether Moral Objectivism is true or false.

        Like

      • Rape is wrong. That’s my objective truth. You have yet to shown that it doesn’t pass muster as an objective truth. You have given any argument why the statement “Rape is wrong” is not an objective truth. You’ve merely stated that it’s “clearly” not objective. Why? Back yourself up, because from my point of view it is “clearly” an objective truth.

        Like

      • What are you blabbering on about? It’s sanctioned in the bible. I need only present one example to prove its NOT objective. I can produce a second… rapists don’t think its wrong.

        So, come on, I’m growing terribly bored with you: name one objective truth.

        Like

      • Once again, whether or not the Bible sanctions rape does not affect the validity of the idea that some moral actions are objectively evil. Rapists believing that rape isn’t wrong also is besides the point. Moral Objectivism states that some things are wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. So how does one religion’s teachings or a few individuals opinions matter? Even if the whole world believed rape was acceptable it would have no impact on the statement “Some actions are objectively right or wrong.”

        So I’ll say again: one objective truth is that rape is wrong. Give me an argument showing that it isn’t.

        Like

      • I have shown you its subjective. Even your god thinks so. Want me to quote all the bible passages sanctioning rape? Now rise to the occasion and name a single objective truth. I’m not kidding, you’re boring me to tears here.

        Like

      • I’m afraid the sentiment is mutual. You have claimed that it is subjective but given me no argument in favor of it being so. You can quote the Bible if you like, but I was under the impression that you did not believe the Bible was true anyway. I don’t see at all what the Bible has to do with the question “Is morality objective or subjective?”

        Like

      • It matters not whether I believe in the bible or not. You do, and many others do as well. The bible is the moral code for Christians. I need only present a single case of where rape is sanctioned… in this case, encouraged!

        Deuteronomy 20:10-14: As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

        What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

        Now, I’ll give you one last chance… Name one objective, universal, unchallengeable truth.

        Like

      • Rape. Is. Wrong.

        It doesn’t matter whether I believe in the bible or not. The question “is morality objective or subjective” doesn’t rise or fall with the validity of Christianity, or the bible itself. The bible could be nothing but a pile of garbage and it wouldn’t answer the question “is morality objective or subjective.” Here, pretend I’m an atheist, but one who believes in objective morality. How does your argument that objective morality doesn’t exist affect me in the slightest?

        Like

      • Are you trying to sound stupid? If you are, it’s certainly working. You are stating your opinion. It’s an opinion I agree with, but others CLEARLY do not…. Therefore it is NOT objective. Now I will grant you there are certain things that near an objective truth, abhorrent things, but they do not fall under the purview of objective truth just as long as they are not universal. Is that so hard for you to understand? Of course it is, because without objective truth your god disappears…a god, i remind you who sanctions rape, murder, and genocide.

        OK, so it’s clear you can’t name a single objective truth. Of course, I knew you couldn’t, but thanks for playing anyway.

        Like

      • Saying that “Rape is wrong” is merely “stating my opinion” ASSUMES that there is not such thing as objective morality. It does not prove anything. You seem completely incapable of making an actual argument towered its subjectivity. All you’ve done is claim, over and over, that it is subjective. You’ve done nothing to prove it. As I said, multiple times, the fact that people dispute whether something is right or wrong does not tell us whether it is objectively right and wrong or not. If Moral Objectivism is true then it doesn’t matter what people think about a moral choice. So you say people disagree with me on rape. I say fine, I knew that…but how does that prove that rape isn’t objectively wrong?

        I named an objective truth. It’s clear you can’t make a single cogent argument for it’s subjectivity.

        Like

      • How do i spell this out for you mark? Just one last time: You (and I, and most people) find rape, child molestation, and war abhorrent. Granted. The rapist, owners of child molestation websites and warmongers like Halliburton don’t. They support these things… as does your religion.

        Your god sanctions and encourages rape, molestation and war.

        Your Jesus character sanctions and encourages rape, molestation and war, as he demanded the Old Testament be abided by until the end of human existence itself:

        (Matthew 5:18-19) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven

        That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Jesus says rape, molest and war. Now, one would have expected a true god-man, a moral character worthy of respect, to have said don’t rape, molest and war… but somewhat oddly he didn’t. He COMMANDED you, Mark, to go and rape, molest and war!

        Now, just like the BS artist himself, William Lane Craig, you are simply taking a high-order subjective truth and saying its objective while IGNORING the clear fact that your religion, your god and god-man disagree with you! It’s pathetic and disingenuous to the extreme. In fact, it’s rather childish. You are also just choosing to IGNORE the fact that there are people (the rapist, owners of child molestation websites and warmongers like Halliburton) who today find no moral qualms with any of it.

        So, that’s it. You haven’t been able to name a single objective truth. You have wasted my time and contributed to making the human species just a little bit stupider.

        Like

      • Are you completely incapable of actually listening to what people say? The argument has been one giant circle.

        Me: Rape is wrong.

        You: The Bible says it isn’t!”

        Me: So what? That doesn’t prove it isn’t wrong.

        You: But the Bible says it’s right!

        Just a giant circle. No matter how many times you say “The Bible says rape is okay” it will never become an actual argument supporting the idea “There is no such thing as objective right and wrong.”

        By claiming over and over again that I haven’t been able to name a single objective truth, you are saying that rape is not wrong. That rape is, in fact, totally neutral. That while people like you and me may not like rape, there’s nothing inherently wrong in raping people. That it’s just a matter of personal choice.

        And I’m the one making the human species stupider?

        Like

      • Absolute drivel, but typical behaviour from a blinded apologist. I asked you for an objective truth and you failed miserably to provide one. I proved your example did not meet the criteria, yet you refuse to accept that. Here, this story is from just this morning. As patently sick as this is, Jordan Lafayette Prince also proves you wrong.

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/18/police-infant-died-after-mother-invited-pedophile-boyfriend-to-rape-child/

        Now, you are a boring man. Stop boring me.

        Like

      • You “proved my example did not fit the criteria”? I find that hard to believe. Your argument so far seems to be twofold:

        1. The Bible says rape is okay.
        2. 100% of humanity does not agree that rape is wrong.

        As I told you before, it doesn’t matter how many people believe something is right or wrong. IF objective morality is true then the morality of an action isn’t dependent on what humans think. Everyone in the world could believe rape was okay and it wouldn’t change the fact that rape is wrong. So saying “objective morality isn’t true because not everyone agree rape is wrong” is a non-argument. It doesn’t matter.

        So far I’ve failed to see you provide any criteria for an objective truth whatsoever.

        Like

    • “Moral Objectivists believe that these standards of morality apply to everyone, regardless of culture, and some believe that all humans are, at least in part, aware of this greater moral law. ”

      I believe that is the concept that gets Moral Objectivists into trouble. There is not a lot of distance between believing that certain moral laws apply to everyone, and forcing that moral interpretation onto everyone.

      If a specific moral concept is indeed “true” then most moral structures will eventually gravitate towards it and incorporate it into their respective dogmas. However, that does not make it a “law” in the scientific sense, because morality is not an immutable force of nature (like gravity). It is a mode of collaborative living mutually agreed upon by a society in order to facilitate orderly functioning.

      Like

      • I appreciate a response that’s actually thoughtful. Thank you.

        The problem with this is that your interpretation assumes that there is no objective moral law. Saying “morality…is a bode of collaborative living mutually agreed upon by a society” is ASSUMING that morality is subjective.

        The main point I’m trying to make here is that I have not seen anywhere in this post or in the comment threads an actual argument against objective morality. All I’ve seen is people assuming that all morality is subjective, and then using that assumption to “prove” that there is no such thing as objective morality. Hey, I’m a reasonable guy. I’m willing to listen to different points of view. I just wanted to point out that no real arguments against objective morality have been made.

        Like

  8. Great post along with interesting and tedious,(if I may be presumptuous) comments. I have a link to Christopher Hitchens addressing this very subject if you’re interested.

    Like

  9. @ Mark Hamilton.

    What concerns me, is while you revile rape and the rapist ( Rightly so, I hasten to add)
    It is sanctioned in the bible, by the god you worship.
    Do you not see ANYTHING in the slightest bit odd here?

    *” Rape. Is. Wrong.” ( Mark Hamilton.)
    Mark Hamilton is a Christian, who believes in the Word of God, believes the bible is the inspired word of this god. A god that supports and/or encourages, rape, incest, murder, slavery and where appropriate(sic) genocide.
    BTW This same god claims he loves humans.

    Therefore, is Mark, a) Insane. or b) Insane.

    Like

      • This mentality is a feature of all religious adherents. Those that are able to see reason soon become atheist, whether they be lay folk or church/religious officials.
        The reasons for abandoning faith inevitably have a lot to do with the realisation that their religious text is false and irreconcilable with the supposed message of love and ‘salvation’, or the Golden Rule, where the actions of the god figure and the bit players so oftens runs contrary to this.
        This is why I have such admiration for someone like Nate who WAS able to see the truth and had the integrity and honesty to turn his back on christianity, and it initially cost him his family.
        And for the completely opposite reason I have nothing but utter contempt for the likes of Mark and P&W – and anyone who tries to justify this rubbish and that they are unwilling or unable to comprehend the true nature of religion
        suggest they have ulterior motives or suffer from some form of psychosis.

        Like

      • Read a good post on this yesterday; the personality traits of the religious. These people are typically less logical in their reasoning, but more importantly they exhibit strong submissive tendencies and actually like to be led (regardless of whether it’s right or wrong). That is to say, they don’t find thinking easy and as such are more inclined to fall in behind groups who’ve already done the thinking for them.

        I know you’ve noticed, but no apologist I’ve ever come across has offered a single new argument. Every one straight down the line regurgitates the same tired old explanations and excuses. Sure, some repackage it, but it’s all the same old, stale, already debunked stuff.

        Like

  10. This is a fantastic post! You’ve done your usual witheringly precise and deadly logical magic, and yet the likes of PeW and Mark are still languishing in the Isle of the Lost. I just don’t get it. I’m glad PeW played a few rounds though, it adds to the entertainment value. 🙂

    Like

  11. Next time I’m in a morality chat with a Christian, I’ll have to use this: “the bible is no more a source of objective moral guidance than Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an industrial design manual for ornate Shāng Dynasty ritual wine vessels”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s