Summations Only

Many people know that the bible is entirely myth of course.The trouble is, there's no agreement amongst Christians which bits are myths and which bits are real so it's difficult to argue with you as a group; you just have to say "ah, but I don't believe that bit"Are you're going to say that all the bad things God does in the bible are myths? If not, you can just substitute the flood myth in my statement with whatever atrocity you believe in - it still works.

Are you sure that "most Christians know" that the Flood was a myth and not real?How do you think you know that? What's your source?

Nonsense. It contains some facts. So it doesn't make sense to make blanket statements about their morality, does it? I'm still having trouble making the connection: How does believing that their god did something in the past that was bad, make them a bad person? Lets say we have a person we could all argree on, at face value, was a morally good person. How would learning that they believe in a god that did something bad, change our perception of their morality? How would it change their actual morality? Isn't is pretty much irrelevant what they believe?

I looked it up in my gut... feel free to reject it in making your argument tho.Do you honestly think that most Christians think a global flood actually happened?

i'm not quite sure what to do with that.
I think it's probably best that we both pretend you didn't say it ;-) A couple of issues here.
1. An all perfect, all knowing and loving god surely can't do anything bad?
2. The connection is that if someone worships a god that does bad stuff and accepts the bad stuff as fact, then we have a moral conundrum. It's one thing admiring Hitler for his organisation, leadership, vision etc; but if that person continued to admire Hitler with the full knowledge of his role in the holocaust, we'd question his morality wouldn't we?

Why? Do you think there's not one true thing in the Bible? So you didn't explain to me how to make the connection... Can you? I don't see how that helps your argument. I don't judge people's morality by their admirations, but by how they conduct themselves. Is that really what you think morality should be judged on? Fucking beliefs!?

Your "gut" is not a reliable source of information. It's worthless, in fact - you're making a statement as fact when you knowingly acknowledge that you have no data upon which to support such an assertion. I don't know how many Christians globally think that the Flood was real vs myth. I haven't seen a good survey.I do know several individuals and multiple churches who treat it as fact from personal experience, but I have no idea how my small representative sample from my own life (not random, limited to specific denominations in specific geographical areas and where not every individual was polled) compares to Christianity as a whole. In argument, my experience would be proof that there are at least some Christians who believe the Flood to be historical fact, but would be useless to determine what most Christians do or do not know.I imagine that your own "data" are similarly limited, yes? Rationally, that would preclude you from making any such claim about what "most Christians" do or do not know, wouldn't it?

I think this discussion has drifted a bit from the OP. As I understand it, the original argument was saying that religious people who claim that they are morally superior to atheists based on the respective deaths caused by the two sides, and who also hold that all the deaths in the OT actually happened are wrong.It is then a discussion for those people to determine what the actual numbers are. For those who know the flood is a myth, or who don't base their level of morality on supposed deaths caused by each side, this argument is useless or purely academic.

Well whoopty-fucking-doo... as I said, feel free to reject my claim while your making your argument. You gonna get around to that today? Or are you just taking pot-shots from the sidelines?

Yeah, we've all pretty much agreed with that. Well, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that your god did something bad in the past, and being a bad person.

If you believe that your god did something bad, and you believe that it was okay for your god to do that, then you have at minimum an inconsistent system of morality.Whether you're a "bad person" or not depends on the ethical system in play. From an authoritarian standpoint, where morality issues from obedience to the authority, Action X can be ethical one day and unethical the next depending on the whim of the authority.Personally, I find that sort of morality to be repugnant, as it allows the authority to commit or condone acts of genocide, torture, and rape and still be called "good."I practice humanistic preference utilitarianism. To me, any act of genocide or rape or torture, regardless of who is doing it, "god" or mortal, is reprehensibly evil, and anyone who believes that such an action was okay is also evil.So yes, I think that if you believe that your god killed the world or killed all of Egypt's firstborn or even just that human sacrifice and scapegoating (ie, Jesus) are morally right actions, then I think you are a bad person. Not as bad as if you had actually committed the acts yourself, but I don't think it's acceptable to think that those sorts of actions were ever acceptable for anyone.

Well, it depends on whether you consider your god to be a good or moral being.If I told you that I admired the hijakers on 9/11 or believed that Timothy McVeigh was A-OK, regardless of whether I worked with the homeless and donated every extra dollar to charity, wouldn't you kind of keep your distance from me?I agree it's kind of a guilty by association thing, but who you admire tends to be who you emulat. And being able to justify calling someone else's repugnant actions "good" is just one step from being able to justify doing it yourself.

um, !'m sure there are lots of true things in the bible, it's quite a big book, if would be an immense achievement if it was pretending to tell the truth but delivered total lies. My slight amazement was in hearing a Christian saying that the bible contains only some true stuff. But I think I understand what you mean. um (x2) I explain that in the bit where I say this "The connection is that etc" Well personally, I'm not too concerned with people's morality - but I do make general judgements about them on what they 'fucking' believe - if they are extreme; don't you?I tend not to get on with people who claim that homosexuals are an abomination, that black people should go home (or similar racist remarks), the women should stay out of the workplace, that atheists can't gain political power or that Noah built an ark.
If someone shared with me their admiration of Hitler, I would tend to think fairly badly of them and I suspect that you would too.But we are talking about extremes here. Not the majority.

Eh?:

quote:

---

The connection is that if someone worships a god that does bad stuff and accepts the bad stuff as fact, then we have a moral conundrum.

---

Hrm, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that their god did something in the past that was bad, and them being a bad person. No, I make judgements about how they conduct themselves... because, well, that's what morality is. As I said, beliefs are irrelvant. Sharing your admirations of Hitler isn't a very good way of conducting yourself.... Simply admiring his organization, or whatever, doesn't make you a bad person.

If you did, that would make you a bad person? No, your conduct outweighs your admirations. And that makes you a bad person? Really?Does "being closer to being able to help someone" make you a good person? Or does actaully helping someone make you a good person?