General Yaweh.

There is no doubt that the actions of the old testament God would land him squarely in an international tribune for war crimes. He wages total war on civilian populations, orders taking of slaves and war brides, kills children, demands absolute loyalty to orders, and provides no quarter for surrender.  Hell, the bible reads like a do-it-yourself manual for how to end up as the defendant at the Hague International Court.

But let’s back up a bit.  In all fairness, many military commanders from yesteryear would also face charges if tried in the modern times. Just think back in American history a mere 154 years ago when Sherman led a total war campaign to cut off the south. Although highly effective at crippling the enemy supply chains, it was also unnecessarily hard on the civilian population.  Many other great commanders in history had not-so-great philosophies that included such questionable tactics as pillaging, chemical weapons, non-metallic land mines, killing all survivors, etc.

I’m not here to debate the morality of these historic commanders, but to point out that even the morality of full-scale war has evolved over time. It is now internationally understood that soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders, that efforts are made to protect civilian populations, and non-combatants are treated well.  When we find out that possibly the greatest military commander of all time, Napoleon, also once used gas chambers on civilians, for example, we don’t just call it a good thing.  It becomes part of the discussion, we call it wrong, and it becomes a lesson from which to learn and grow.  Napoleon’s tactics, good.  Napoleons gas chambers, bad.

War morality grows up just like human morality.  Sherman was probably a good soldier doing what was necessary to achieve his military goal.  But we learn from our mistakes.  Unlike chickens (that exhibit empathy), we both exhibit empathy AND continue to learn through our advanced communication abilities.  We are not forever stuck with basic forms of emotional attachment, we instead continue to grow and discuss values as a group, improving our morality, and improving our humane treatment of others.

The bible is more or less stuck with the words printed in it.  On this point, I believe most Christians would actually take it further and say that they haven’t changed.  This is actually worse for their case, because it means that the morality of the bible is therefore understood to be a single thing, unchangeable forever.  But this is simply not how morality works.  Our highly evolved communication is how we have advanced morality.

The bible fails because it is forever stuck in an ancient mentality.  This was the early ages of human civilization, and humans made a LOT of mistakes back then.  There is very little real history in the book, but it is a great window into understanding what those ancient civilizations thought about morality, of course, but also of power, the rule of law, how government is organized, and what they considered good or bad human traits.  Human individuality was certainly not a highly prized value.

But beyond giving us a glimpse into the mentality of those ancient writers and leaders, there is no reason for us to consider any of the bible’s moral pronouncements with any more weight than discussing the moral values of Genghis Khan.  It is simply ancient, outdated, juvenile morality.

god-vs-hitler_o_581165

So why am I writing this article?  Because despite the absolutely immoral, genocidal, homicidal, war crimes that General Yaweh personally inflicts on humans in the bible, there are still people that say “he is good!”  Even worse, THEY know genocide and other war crimes are bad, but STILL refuse to indict their god.  Because excuses:

“God got better.”  No, this isn’t how they say it, but it’s exactly what they mean.  “Old Testament god, well we don’t follow that anymore.  We just talk about Jesus and his love.”  So, somehow god got better?  Then your god is learning, and never tell me again that he is omniscient, because he still has much to learn.

“God was training the early people.”  Ugh, this excuse makes me want to vomit.  Is he  god or not?  He was super specific about cutting of the end of your pecker, church fashion sense, when you could have sex, exactly how to mark your slaves and how to handle disputes, but somehow he couldn’t just tell the entire world about war crimes and why they were bad?

This excuse really falls apart when you remember that in the entire history of every culture in the entire world, god’s morality just seemed to seamlessly match the culture of that time and location on the globe.  Without god, the middle east pretty much acted with the same set of morality, and he “conveniently” agreed with them.  But no culture on earth follows this same morality today.  Apparently, god is insecure and doesn’t like to buck human trends, so that people will still revere him.

And the most disgusting of all, “god is always good so what he did was good for reasons we can’t know.”  But they’re wrong.  I know.  I know that there is no reason to kill innocent children.  There is absolutely nothing that can’t be achieved by other means other than killing a child.  I don’t care what the reason was.

That child would grow up to be another Hitler?  Easy.  Never born, or change their life to prevent it.  Parents used it as motivation for something great?  Easy.  Just take care of the great thing so they don’t have to go through agony to do the same thing.  Seriously, I can play this game all day.  If killing innocent children with horrible deaths is the best option your god can come up with to take care of something, then your god is fucking stupid.

So, I’d certainly entertain any discussion where Bible God is described as the creator of the universe, but is learning along the way.  I’d entertain a discussion where god created the universe, but was really insecure in the beginning and kinda just went along with whatever his human buddies wanted.  And I’d entertain a discussion where god created the entire universe, but he’s constantly screwing up in big ways, due to complete lack of empathy and low intelligence.  All of these would be logical.

But don’t tell me bible god is good.  He’s the world’s leading war criminal.

The Spartan Atheist

 

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “General Yaweh.

  1. Ive been reading a little near eastern literature from 7th century. A good chunk of the Quran is battle strategy and when it’s ok to kill. Another nice lot from the abrahamic thirst for vengeance

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Rather to be expected given that Muhammad was a military commander and ruler in his lifetime, and not a benign one. Islamic primary sources describe him as carrying out various atrocities such as the mass beheading of all the adult males of the Banû Qurayzah (a Jewish tribe in the city of Yathrib, now called Medinah), and enslavement of their women and children — quite like something out of the Old Testament. The majority of the material in the Koran is adapted from the Bible. Muhammad learned well from his source material.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I asked a Christian a while back how he knew Jesus wasn’t a false prophet, because Mohammed clearly is more in line with OT God. He quit talking to me.

        Like

      2. Thank you. We Americans tend to know very little bout Islam. Thank you.

        Like

  2. And the most disgusting of all, “god is always good so what he did was good for reasons we can’t know.”

    This is the most common go-to excuse, but the problem is that it applies just as well to any other perpetrator of horrors. One could just as well say Hitler was good, that all the horrible things he did served some higher good purpose beyond our understanding. One could say the same about malaria or smallpox. It’s all a question of which one a given person chooses to believe must be benevolent in spite of all evidence.

    I would say, “If God’s atrocities are good for reasons humans can’t know, how do you know? Because God said so? Would you accept the same about Hitler’s atrocities if Hitler said so?” They claim to know God must be good because the Bible says so, but the Bible is supposedly the word of God, so it’s just another unsupported proclamation of innocence from the defendant. Someone with a similar fervent belief in Mein Kampf would believe Hitler was good. It’s circular logic all round.

    On the other hand, if you believe these Bible passages were the work of a bloodthirsty priestly caste egging on its brainwashed legions to procure more land, resources, and slaves, or making up scary stories to keep those legions obedient, everything makes perfect sense.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Yeah, that’s pretty much the common thread of all “tough” religious questions. If you hypothesize that it’s all made up, it all makes perfect sense. If you hypothesize God is real, shit is wack…

      Like

    2. Divine command theory. More rationalization

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Yeah God was a nasty, petty individual in the Old Testament. Then came the Jebus character all sweetness and light. I don’t believe in either of them though.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s almost like god woke up one morning and realized he was being a dick…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Some ancient sects, like the Marcionites thought there were 2 separate Gods, a lesser evil god, and God, due to that very observation! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Yes, but it was okay because God said so… Those were “inconsequential genocides” 😉
    (Insert massive amounts of sarcasm)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The tap dance to hold god in good standing is just disgusting. Sarcasm warranted!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So true! It angers me people will tolerate evils they would never in any earthy tyrant! I guess many think God is above morality and being kind and ethical is only for us “mere mortals”….

        Liked by 1 person

    2. “being kind and ethical is only for us mere mortals”. Spot on

      What I still fail to understand is how satan is evil and god is good
      Satan crimes is like a kid stealing my candy when compared to what god did

      Liked by 2 people

  5. The issue with christians is that the see
    God = Good
    Good = God

    Once you start with the conclusion that god is the personification of good and satan at the far left of the spectrum as the personification of evil. Then am sorry you can’t see no more

    I have had many christians tell me that it is a logical contradiction for god to do something bad, to sin and blah blah blah. But when you put god on trial and you treat him or her or it the same way you treat a guy like hitler, he falls short

    What better way to justify your actions that have the people believe it was god that asked you to do it

    I’m tired off hearing christians tell me that god did not spare the little innocent children so that they would not grow up and become bad dudes and meet their relatives down stairs. Your god could have simply guide them along his right path or at the very least not created them in the first place

    If you were to point out similar actions performed by “pagan gods” to christians, they would be quick to tell you how these acts are cruel and barbaric

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Hypocracy is a Christian value, it seems.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Socrates asked this thousands of years ago: “Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?”

    I will rephrase it and ask a questionDoes what god do good because it is good or is it good because god does it?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I always think of that question too! I think it’s at the heart of many religious prohibitions and ostracism, like being gay, for example. There’s no secular ethical reason it’s unethical or immoral, but it isn’t to God’s taste, therefore an “unholy abomination!”

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I conclude from this article that you believe God exists but he’s not “good”.
    Is that right?

    Like

    1. Well that’s your conclusion. But I don’t seem to know the bases it was arrived at, care to elaborate

      Like

      1. Of course!
        This article would make no rational sense unless the perpetrator of the crimes (waging war, killing children, etc.) existed. Would you write an article about the evil behavior of Freddy Krueger?

        Like

      2. “Would you write an article about the evil behavior of Freddy Krueger?”

        Yes, John. As a matter of fact, they wrote, directed, and released entire movies about Freddy Krueger. Maybe you missed them. They were called the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series. They literally spent thousands of hours talking about a made-up person that was evil.

        As a matter of fact, the entire point of fairy tales was to convey a moral message. Fairy tales provide us discussion points to being more moral, and informing us of the consequences of our actions.

        Mr. John Brain-yawn, if you have ever, ever in your entire life considered the moral lessons of a fairy tale, and not considered the lead characters of the tale to be real, then I just demonstrated how stupid your statement is.

        I, just like while reading fairy tales, am able to identify moral lessons and make moral judgments while reading the Bible. No, I do not conclude that bible god is real. But I am able to read the book and ascertain that bible god is a petty, genocidal, twisted, jealous, immoral monster.

        Remember fairy tales, John. Remember fairy tales.

        Like

      3. Oh.
        I disagree that God is an immoral monster.

        Like

      4. Once again, charlatan John, you completely ignored the question and just inserted your ill-formed conclustion.

        Have you ever in your life contemplated the moral actions of characters in a fairy tale, yes or no?

        Like

      5. Of course.
        I have never written a blog post condemning fairy tale villains for their immorality.

        Like

      6. Doesn’t matter. You contemplated morality of made-up characters. I am also contemplating the morality of a made-up character.

        Even if you believe the character is not made up, I believe he is made up, and I am still able to contemplate this characters morality.

        Now quit being a charlatan and saying I believe in god for contemplating his morality.

        Like

      7. Cool.
        Keep writing. This is great stuff!

        Like

    2. I don’t need to believe that darth vader or the sith or Voldemort existed before I can criticize their actions

      I would absolutely write an article about the evil behaviour of Freddy Krueger if people kept on coming to my house almost every day, or on the internet and were presenting Freddy Krueger as the very personification of good

      Like

      1. Then, as I said, your articles would be irrational.

        You don’t expose the evils of Voldemort because you know he isn’t real. You expose the evils of God because you actually believe He exists.

        Like

    3. “You don’t expose the evils of Voldemort because you know he isn’t real. You expose the evils of God because you actually believe He exists.”

      I don’t expose the evils of Voldemort because everyone I know knows he isn’t real and don’t based their view on morality on Voldemort as the source. But thats not the case with god, I know people who believe he to be real and base their morality on god as its source, thats why I expose the evils of god so that those who believe he is real know what based on their source of god in this case the bible the evils he committed

      Like

      1. If God does not exist, there is no such thing as evil. Atheists tell me this all the time.

        Like

      2. John, once again you are a charlatan. You are twisting the words of atheists to establish a straw-man for which you can easily attack the premise. If you would spend more time actually thinking about the arguments, instead of twisting the arguments and lying so you can make them look bad, you may actually learn something.

        Like

      3. Once again, calling me a charlatan doesn’t refute any arguments.

        Like

    4. That depends on your definition of evil

      Like

      1. If there is no God, there is only nature.
        Nature is neither good nor evil. Evil is as fictional as Voldemort.

        Like

      2. Like I said it depends on your definition of evil

        Definitions of evil from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evil:

        Profoundly immoral and wicked.
        (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil.
        Harmful or tending to harm.
        (of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant
        Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
        A manifestation of profound immorality and wickedness, especially in people’s actions.
        Something which is harmful or undesirable.

        Some of this definitions require you to believe they are supernatural forces while some don’t have that dependency

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Are all definitions of evil equally valid?

        Like

    5. “Are all definitions of evil equally valid?”
      I don’t understand, valid in what sense

      Like

      1. Is my definition of equal just as good as yours?

        Like

    6. “Is my definition of equal just as good as yours?”
      Whats your definition and how did we get to the definition of “equal”

      Like

      1. So your answer is, “No. All definitions of evil are not equally valid.”
        If all definitions were equally true, it doesn’t matter how we define the term.

        If there is no God, there is only nature. Nature is not good or bad. Murder, slavery, and oppression are simply products of evolution. Right?

        Like

    7. “So your answer is, No. All definitions of evil are not equally valid.”
      I can’t remember ever saying this

      ” Nature is not good or bad. ”
      Nature does not use such labels. The labels “good”, “bad”, “evil” are man made

      Like

    8. Just checking out it seem my original comment was too long and isn’t appearing so I will break it up into multiple comments

      “Murder, slavery, and oppression are simply products of evolution. Right?”
      The key here is your use of the word simply. There exists, as far as I am aware, no evidence that any of the above acts are simply evolved.
      https://relay-nationalgeographic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/09/human-violence-evolution-animals-nature-science?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

      “One pattern stood out pretty clearly: Lethal violence increased over the course of mammal evolution. While only about 0.3 percent of all mammals die in conflict with members of their own species, that rate is sixfold higher, or about 2 percent, for primates. Early humans likewise should have about a 2 percent rate—and that lines up with evidence of violence in Paleolithic human remains.

      The medieval period was a particular killer, with human-on-human violence responsible for 12 percent of recorded deaths. But for the last century, we’ve been relatively peaceable, killing one another off at a rate of just 1.33 percent worldwide. And in the least violent parts of the world today, we enjoy homicide rates as low as 0.01 percent.

      “Evolutionary history is not a total straitjacket on the human condition; humans have changed and will continue to change in surprising ways,” says study author José María Gómez of Spain’s Arid Zones Experimental Station. “No matter how violent or pacific we were in the origin, we can modulate the level of interpersonal violence by changing our social environment. We can build a more pacific society if we wish.””

      Like

      1. Take out the word “simply” if you like.
        The point is there isn’t anything wrong with any evolved life. Right?

        Like

    9. Is Murder, slavery, and oppression part of evolution?

      i think it is…
      Humans will evolve beyond it…maybe.
      If we could identify the genes involved, i would wager that in highly populated developed nations that there is already selection for “fairness” and “anti-xenophobia”.

      Humans spent most of our history as hunter-gathers, basically acting like smart primates. We would do what primates do, form relatively small semi-related bands, hunt, gather, and raid other groups. These groups are typically xenophobic and prone to violence. They usually had a warrior cast that originated out of “hunting culture”, as men had to venture far to find food in dangerous places, possibly encountering hostile bands, that were also competing for food.
      After the advent of agriculture people started to form settled agricultural communities, which could sustain more people. These city state were usually a collection of small semi-related groups (clans). Society became a bit less democratic or completely undemocratic and hierarchical.
      Some of these city states started to form empires, which was often a collection of many semi-related or completely unrelated peoples under one ruler (King, Emperor, etc.) Sometimes the ruling class was still of one ethnic group, often they would intermix with some of the ruling class of the conquered to cement ties. People did not move around that much in settled agricultural societies, so the people often did not mix as much as we would think today. They stayed in their “homelands”, for the most part, although there was migration during unstable periods. This was true up until the 19th century CE really.

      Liked by 1 person

    10. Today we have multi-ethnic states. Many Western nations are multi-ethnic, but we also have states like China, Singapore, Philippines, Canada, Malaysia, Russia, India, Nigeria etc. These are not the nation-states of the 19th centuries, states formed around an ethnic group – these are the reminiscent of collapsed empires or new nations. These nations are full of people, often completely unrelated to each other in any way but the passport they hold and some basic cultural norms.
      Why illustrate all this? Because the history of human civilization has been a roughly upward movement to great and great social and political diversity, incorporating more and more people that are not closely related.
      As we have moved upward from hunter-gathers we have had to extend morality to groups of people that were not related to us.
      For example, no tribe, no human society has the belief it is okay to murder, rape, steal whatever you want from whomever you want. No human society can survive like that. However Mongols and Vikings thought it was okay to do that to people not of their group.
      Today 99% of people in China , America, Russia, France, UK, etc. would think this is not okay to do to anyone.
      It would be laughable to a hunter-gather that an outsider be treated identical to a member of the band, however, in many nations like the U.S., by law, in court many rights MUST be given, not to just any American citizen regardless of racial/ethnic/religious origin, but also to foreigner. Foreigners are not equal to citizens, but they are far closer in American in 2017, than they were in ancient Rome in 17 CE or China in 1817 CE.
      My belief is that for this to have happened humans are under selection to be less xenophobic and reactive to people who look different and act differently than our ancestors were. However for these traits to become relatively fixed in human populations (the way light skin is in Europeans) (if they ever do become fixed or have a chance to) will take a very long time, we are talking hundreds maybe over a millennium, but I believe it is happening.
      Slavery often “others outside the group” who would be enslaved, if it was a lower social class or “foreigners”.
      It’s hard to enslave and dehumanize someone that looks and acts exactly like yourself, someone that could be your son or daughter.
      The worst slavery was always the enslavement of “the other”, far worse than enslaving someone in your own society of your own class, in most cases.

      Like

      1. There is nothing bad about slavery.
        Evolution is neutral.

        Like

      2. “This doesn’t make any practical difference in the way we view slavery”
        It does
        It is because slavery “Harmful or tending to harm” that makes slavery evil

        Like

    11. “There is nothing bad about slavery.
      Evolution is neutral.”
      Like I said before nature does not use or care about such terms like good, bad, right, wrong, evil, “neutral” those are man made labels just like how the universe does not use/care about the “value” of gold or diamond in the global market those are man made labels

      “There is nothing bad about slavery”
      That speaks volume about the kind of person you are

      “Take out the word “simply” if you like.
      The point is there isn’t anything wrong with any evolved life. Right?”
      I will keep on saying this terms like good, bad, right, evil, wrong etc are man made labels and not intrinsic properties of any life

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Take out the word “simply” if you like.
        The point is there isn’t anything wrong with any evolved life. Right?”
        I am using the word “wrong” based on the context of this discussion

        Like

      2. Well, everything is a man made label I guess. Including love, intelligence and friendship. What is the point of making that statement?

        Like

      3. John, if you can’t understand how humans interact, show love and empathy, and have discussions on what is right and wrong, you’re too unintelligent to keep this up.

        If you are a fairly intelligent person, then concur with me in saying we discuss morality with our fellow humans, and come to conclusions on better or worse actions.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. You are not qualified to evaluate my intelligence. It is astonishing how quickly you make conversations personal.

        Of course we discuss morality with fellow humans. I never suggested otherwise. There is, however, no possible way to decide on “better” or “worse” actions until we agree on an objective standard of good. Just like we cannot decide what is “hot” or “cold” without an objective measure (usually a thermometer).

        Like

      5. John, unfortunately I have to insult your intelligence or you refuse to think. Morality is not easy. You constantly offer a worldview is so ridiculously simplistic that I often wonder if you are intelligent.

        Think. Please think. The history of human morality is a messy, ugly affair. The bible is confirmation on how fucked up our morality used to be. But we kept communicating. We kept learning. We kept thinking. We kept on teaching. And now, our morality is vastly superior to the bible.

        You seem to want a single reference guide to all morality. Well, I wish I had a single reference guide on how to be an astrophysicist. But it doesn’t work that way, John. We have to be smarter than one book. We have to explore lots and lots of material.

        So quit sounding like an ignorant child wanting all answers to life’s great questions given to you on a Cheerios box. If you can do that, then maybe I’ll quit questioning your intelligence.

        Like

      6. My dad used to tell me the first person to resort to insults is the one who lost the argument. Please, keep calling me names!

        “The bible is confirmation on how fucked up our morality used to be.”
        Sure! Absolutely!
        That’s precisely why God sent Jesus. We’re not any better today than we were back then.

        Like

      7. Lol! Hahahahaha! John, I’m not sure if you meant it this way, but it seems like you just admitted that bible god had such fucked-up morality that he had to send Jesus to un-fuck himself.

        You might have meant that the people were morally corrupt, so Jesus. But Old Testament god is such a morally corrupt, genocidal, petty asshole that it’s quite easy for me to think you may have slipped. You see, since humans wrote the bible, their morality is what is in the book. No god dictated it. Hence, the god they made up has equally rehensible morality.

        So, I think you slipped, but I’ve already given you an excuse to weasel out of it.

        Anyway, keep up the good fight of making everything childishly easy.

        Like

      8. “Well, everything is a man made label I guess. Including love, intelligence and friendship. What is the point of making that statement?”
        Intelligence is a label for the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
        Love is a label for an intense feeling of deep affection.
        Friendship is a label for relationship of mutual affection between people

        “There is nothing bad about slavery”
        What makes slavery bad or evil is not because evil or wrong is an intrinsic property of slavery but because slavery fits the label “evil”
        Just like not all forms of relationship will be considered friendship, it is because it doesn’t fit the label “friendship”

        “What is the point of making that statement”
        Which statement are you referring to

        Like

      9. Jonathan, you wrote the following to JB: Intelligence is a label for the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. I rest my case.

        Liked by 2 people

      10. ‘What makes slavery bad or evil is not because evil or wrong is an intrinsic property of slavery but because slavery fits the label evil’

        This doesn’t make any practical difference in the way we view slavery. As I stated before, EVERYTHING fits a label of some sort. The reason we assign labels is to describe properties and attributes.

        Like

      11. “There is, however, no possible way to decide on “better” or “worse” actions until we agree on an objective standard of good”
        If you have really been reading my comments you would not be saying this. We as humans found it to be evolutionary advantageous to live in communities or groups rather than on our own, the “better” actions are those that foster the community we live in and the “wrong” actions are those that don’t. What we have been trying to achieve is to increase the size of that community to one day accommodate every human on the planet

        ” Just like we cannot decide what is “hot” or “cold” without an objective measure (usually a thermometer).”
        Most times we decide what hot or cold without an objective measure ( at least in our normal daily activities) but we still do have what we compare it against

        Liked by 1 person

    12. This comment is as much for the benefit of those who might be unaware of Branyan’s personal family history as it is directed at Branyan.

      @ Branyan

      I conclude from this article that you believe God exists but he’s not “good”.
      Is that right?

      Such an assumption is solely the position of the believer – you.
      Only an (willful) idiot – you – would be unable to make the connection between a post about Yahweh and an atheist.

      That you believe in this literary character and consider his actions to be beyond reproach is actually a measure of your lack of morality.

      Furthermore, that you consider your personal morality to have been ”given” to you by this literary character illustrates a level of indoctrination that has left you as little more than a sociopath. A behavioral trait you demonstrate every time you write a post or comment on blogs.

      Such a mental health issue is not only blatantly apparent but also a trait that is apparent in certain members of your family, and one that may be inherent – manic depressive perhaps?

      I have no idea if you are currently on any form of prescribed medication or seeing a medical professional but based on your behaviour it would not seem likely.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. We don’t need speculation about the relationship between religion and morality. We have data. The least religious countries in the world (Scandinavia, Britain, Japan) are the most crime-free and peaceful — what crime does exist in those places is disproportionately caused by immigrants from more religious cultures — and the most religious regions such as Latin America, black Africa, and the Middle East are the most violent. Similarly, within the US, the most secular states are the most peaceful while the most religious states have the highest rates of crime, teen pregnancy, divorce, etc. Over time, violence has generally declined along with the decline of religion. We can trace that trend all the way back to the time when Christianity was totally dominant in the West — the time of the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, witch-burnings, torture, and rates of conventional violent crime far higher than anything seen today. As the world continues to become more secular, there’s every reason to expect it to continue becoming more peaceful and humane as well.

    On the general issue of religion and morality, Mr. Branyan might find this video of interest.

    Religion is not a source of morality. Most often, religion is a source of excuses for behaving immorally.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I made this point about religiosity vs morality by region with an apologist on his blog recently. Holy crap, you should have seen the excuse mining!

      As always, thanks for adding to the conversation.

      Like

  9. Your statement was “The bible is confirmation on how fucked up our morality used to be.”
    OUR MORALITY. You weren’t talking about God. I’m sure you’ll have an excuse to weasel out of this.

    You’re judging God to be immoral based on what? Your opinion? The dictionary? Better Homes and Gardens? Where are you getting the idea that God is immoral?

    Like

    1. “Where are you getting the idea that God is immoral”
      God is immoral because god actions or instructions fits the label “immoral”

      “OUR MORALITY. You weren’t talking about God”
      Of course we are talking about our morality we don’t believe any god gave them. But by virtue of the fact that christians assigned them to god it becomes their god morality

      Liked by 2 people

      1. How do you determine the label of immorality?

        Like

      2. “How do you determine the label of immorality?”
        You can check a dictionary for the meaning of the word

        Like

    2. “You’re judging God to be immoral based on what”
      We are judging god to be immoral on the same bases that many christians ( I don’t know if you are included ) judge the actions of “pagan gods” as barbaric

      Like

      1. Oh.
        Does everybody get to define morality for themselves?

        Like

      2. Once again, John the Charlatan, we’ve explained that morality is a process, and once again you are trying to put words in our mouth, and pretend we are toasters instead of thinking, interacting, social beings. Grow up.

        Like

      3. I cannot put words in your mouth asking questions. And thanks for reminding me that I’m winning this argument with your insults.

        You have explained that morality is a process. Is the process complete? If it is not, how can you say God is immoral? Aren’t you jumping the gun making proclamations based on an unfinished morality?

        Like

      4. It’s the same as your argument.

        Like

      5. I’ve never made that statement. Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

        Like

      6. It is exactly the form of your argument. Nothing is understandable about morality whatsoever without GOD. Never mind we have explained the process, the mechanism, the evolution of morality, the values we place on things for morality, and why it works. You just keep yelling “BUT, BUT, BUT, WHAT ABOUT GAWD!!!???

        Like

      7. You put all those words in my mouth.

        Like

      8. “Oh.
        Does everybody get to define morality for themselves?”
        If you took the time read all my comments and were able to understand them you wouldn’t be saying this

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Lol! I’ve explained it many times, John. You clearly can’t or won’t entertain more complex subjects.

      Like

      1. Lol! You clearly can’t or won’t admit when you misspeak.

        You accidentally explained the problem of morality and the reason for Jesus Christ.

        Like

      2. You don’t seem interested in conversation with people who disagree with you.

        Like

      3. I’m not interested in conversation with someone that puts their fingers in their ears and completely ignores everything I say, then jumps up on a table and announces they are right.

        Like

  10. @Branyan

    You don’t seem interested in conversation with people who disagree with you.

    Ooh ..ooh… please sir ! You and I disagree on practically everything and yet you are not interested in conversation. This makes you a liar, then, yes?

    Liked by 2 people

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close