There is No Christian God!

I've already argued there is no Christian God because of the law of predation in the natural world. My argument is that had God created all creatures as vegetarians and kept us that way, a whole lot of needless suffering could've been avoided. This is a simple change we know is possible because we see it in the natural world.

Here's another reason why the Christian God doesn't exist.

God could've created all human beings as one race of people with one color of skin, and kept us that way. It doesn't matter which race or which color of skin, either. I see no reason why a perfectly good God wouldn't have done that, since there has been so much needless racial conflict because we are not all one race of people. There has been a great deal of needless suffering due to lynchings, beatings, hate speech, racial discrimination and especially race based slavery...lots of it. This is something that a good creator would've easily done differently, if he exists.

And even if God had not chosen to create us as one race, at least he would've told us that slavery was unequivocally wrong. He didn't even do that. One of the ten commandments could've been, "Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves." And if this additional commandment couldn't replace the commandment about honoring the Sabbath Day, or the one about not taking the Lord's name in vain, or if God couldn't have combined two of the other ones to make room for it, he could still have repeatedly said it until there was no denying what he meant.

Many Chritian theologians argue that God was clear about slavery in the Bible. But such arguments are hollow ones. If they themselves were born into the brutal slavery of the South, and if their masters were beating them daily, wouldn't they wonder why God wasn't crystal clear about condeming slavery?

According to Sam Harris, when it comes to the issue of slavery, “Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest—and the easiest—moral question our society has ever had to face.” Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006), p. 18.

So here we have simple changes a good God should've done differently: Create us all as one race of people in a world filled with of nothing but vegetarians. Just think of the suffering that would've been avoided. There is no Christian God!


18 comments:

Beautiful Feet said...

What I love is peaceful coexistance amidst a wide array of diversity. As a "believer", I believe that God desires the same thing. It is a challenge to love in a Godly way because I can become intimidated by all sorts of different expressions of life and humanity. You convey a very compassionate and caring perspective.

Anonymous said...

God gave us free will, and free will caused sin. Our own fault and there is no reason to blame God. None whatsoever. Yet, even when we blew it, he sent his only son to die for us. Amazing, amazing, amazing grace and love. It's undeniable.

marie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A Theist said...

My argument is that had God created all creatures as vegetarians and kept us that way, a whole lot of needless suffering could've been avoided.

In the interest of brevity, I will only cut and paste the above comment.
Could you answer one question for me Mr. Loftus?

If God doesn't exist, on what basis are you able to make moral judgments? Your statement above among others in the post, seem to argue that "survival of the fittest" is wrong. The content of your post assumes the Christian worldview, that man is created in the imago dei which provides the intrinsic worth that your worldview lacks.

You are assuming what you are attempting to disprove.

Shygetz said...

Your statement above among others in the post, seem to argue that "survival of the fittest" is wrong.

I think what John is driving at is that suffering is evil. Similarly, God could make all prey animals incapable of suffering and still avoid unnecessary pain in his creation. And yet prey animals suffer greatly...

A theist said...

You said I think what John is driving at is that suffering is evil.

How's that? What is *evil in an atheistic worldview? Evolution is indiscriminate and immmune to *suffering, as this is how the system functions. The Christian worldview is once again assumed in order to make sense of the concepts that are so smugly posited as *evidences* against God's existence.

Shygetz said...

Evolution is indiscriminate and immmune to *suffering, as this is how the system functions.

Claiming a morality for evolution is as sane as claiming a morality for gravity; natural phenomena are amoral. It is quite possible to have a non-Christian worldview that counts suffering as evil; indeed, it is common. Most humanistic worldviews also count suffering as evil. If this needs to be pointed out to you, then I suggest you get out more.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

I want to thank A Theist for stating his point so concisely. I had already been working on the first of a series of posts on this and related topics, and the concision with which you phrased your viewpoint is enabling me to go back and tighten up my own writing. I look forward to your contributions in those comments as well.
However, I do have to again point out that evolution is not "smugly posited as *evidences* against God's existence."
Evolution is entirely neutral on the question of the existence of a Creator, or even of the Christian or Jewish candidate. (This is why many evolutionists are also believers, and why I myself was an evolutionist several years before I ceased being one.)

The only thing that evolution is evidence against is the idea that the opening of Genesis and either of the two contradictory creation stories should be taken literally. However, that position is not held by almost all of Judaism -- see the coments in the article John references below -- by Catholicism, and by most of Protestantism. Biblical 'inerrancy' and 'literalism' is the position of a relatively small group of American Protestants, and only them. (The noise they make -- and the responding noise made by unbelievers who were brought up in that tradition and are reacting against it -- sometimes makes their number seem much greater than it is.

A Theist said...

Shygetz-

You said:

Claiming a morality for evolution is as sane as claiming a morality for gravity; natural phenomena are amoral.

Where did I do this? I believe you have made my point, evolution as a system is amoral therefore atheists are inconsistent when they express outrage over needless "suffering".

It is quite possible to have a non-Christian worldview that counts suffering as evil;

On what basis is suffering evil?


indeed, it is common. Most humanistic worldviews also count suffering as evil.

Why should we accept what humanistic worldviews posit? How do they account for calling it an evil? There is a glaring contradiction here: if the humanist accepts evolution as true, then suffering is a part of the amoral system. The system has no epistemic ground for making value judgements.

If this needs to be pointed out to you, then I suggest you get out more.

In the words of Chris Farley "That's your theory"

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Evolution IS as a system, immoral. So is physics, biochenistry, astrophysics, etc. If a star goes supernova, any sentient life on any planets is destroyed. Or to put it on a more earthly plane, if you fall out of a twentieth story window, you will die, period. It will not matter if you are a serial killer, the person who was two days away from discovering a cure for cancer or a six month old baby. It will not matter what caused your fall.

Does that mean that "if the humanist accepts [gravity] as true, then suffering is a part of the amoral system. The system has no epistemic ground for making value judgements." Yes. But that is not the 'system' the humanist is using for making value judgments.

In the same way evolution is not the system the humanist, OR the Catholic or other theistic evolutionist is using for making value judgments.

Again, I will be putting up my own suggestion for the basics of a system within the next couple of days. I hope you will respond, and include your own definition of a system based on Christian principles, including citations to where you find these principles laid out.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shygetz said...

Prup, I usually hate to split hairs but in this case, I think it is important. Evolution (along with all natural phenomena) is amoral (without moral quality), not immoral (contrary to moral standards).

a theist:

I believe you have made my point, evolution as a system is amoral therefore atheists are inconsistent when they express outrage over needless "suffering".

You would have a point if humanists drew their morality from the theory of evolution. We do not.

On what basis is suffering evil?

On the basis of biologically-based empathy (which has been shown to be present in at least some animals) as well as sociobiological reinforcement of golden rule-like strategies. Game theory has shown that in many cases, the golden rule with a little forgiveness added in is an excellent strategy. While the theist might point at this and say "See, Jesus was right!", the non-theist would point at this and say that it helps explain why a moral system that includes this successful rule would be socially successful.

Why should we accept what humanistic worldviews posit? How do they account for calling it an evil?

Because it is contrary to our moral system, and antithetical to our empathetic response.

There is a glaring contradiction here: if the humanist accepts evolution as true, then suffering is a part of the amoral system.

If you accept gravity as true, then suffering is part of that amoral system. Does that mean that theists now deny gravity? I can keep this up and soon you will be denying all natural phenomena.

The system has no epistemic ground for making value judgements.

It has a biological and social basis, as I pointed out before.

In the words of Chris Farley "That's your theory"

At least I have evidence for a theory, rather than blind belief from a grab bag of religions.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Shygetz:
Entirely correct, I rushed and misspoke.

I agree with the points you made, especially the question of empathy.

And I should state -- since it will be important to my posts, that while a science may not have a moral component, the act of doing science has, at least ideally, certain ethical obligations. And since I happen to agree with the statement that 'man is at his sanest when he is doing science,' I have used those ethical obligations as a base for the ethical structure I will be suggesting.

(And a tip of the Prup topper to the first person who recognizes the source.)

A Theist said...

shygetz:

You would have a point if humanists drew their morality from the theory of evolution. We do not

So do you deny Evolution as your explanantion of origins? Feel free to draw your morality from wherever you would like, it is inconsistent with what one assumes [humanists,atheists et al.] accept as their theory of origins.

On the basis of biologically-based empathy (which has been shown to be present in at least some animals) as well as sociobiological reinforcement of golden rule-like strategies.

Your making this stuff up as you go along aren't you? Care to define biologically based empathy?

Does this begin at the cellular level perhaps ATP feels sorry for ADP because it contains one more Phosphate molecule, so it gives up one of its molecules? Again this is simply inconsistent with the survival of the fittest motif.


If you accept gravity as true, then suffering is part of that amoral system. Does that mean that theists now deny gravity? I can keep this up and soon you will be denying all natural phenomena

Eh? This analogy simply doesn't follow.


At least I have evidence for a theory, rather than blind belief from a grab bag of religions.

Oh yeah, well nanananaabooboo ! Lighten up, the last part was just a little humor.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

A Theist:
You respond to Shygetz, but not to my explanation of it. And you use the 'survival of the fittest' argument in the same way that the Spencerians did. Let me give you a lesson on that as well:
"Survival of the fittest" means that a particular representative that has any advantage that helps him or her survive will have a chance to have more children and may pass this advantage to them. (Similarly, an advantage that makes them more attractive to members of the opposite sex will equally have more of a chance to breed and pass this advantage on.)
That advantage does not necessarily mean one that makes the creature a better predator or fighter. It may also mean one that increases his defensive advantages, such as speed, camouflage, etc.

As man developed consciousness, communication (of abstract ideas, not just of simple facts), cooperation, empathy and ethics, each of them proved to be important advantages in survival. (I don't deny that other species have these -- my cats wouldn't let me -- but not to the extent that man does.)

Communication and consciousness proved to allow the others to be self-replicating, i.e., each newborn did not have to have these as 'innate' characteristics, but they could be taught from parents to children, and reinforced through the influence of the tribe as a whole. (Yes it does "take a village...")

I won't include my speculation as to where consciousness comes from here, except to say that I do consider it 'biologically based' but not in the sense this is usually used.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

One thing I find utterly fascinating in this discussion is how no one is discussing what John actually wrote about slavery.

And yet, this is an obvious example not just of the weakness of the ethical structure of the Testaments, but of how ethical structures have and are continually evolving, and -- because of the 'self-replicating' nature of such evolution I mentioned in the previous comment -- at a much faster rate than biological evolution occurs.

We have evolved beyond the place we were at during Paul's time, where slavery was acceptable. (It should be mentioned that the type of slavery mentioned was, while still a blot, much more 'benign' than the racial slavery you discuss, which had yet to exist at the time. The type of slavery in the Bible was the result of defeat or capture during war time, did not result in a permanent condition or be caried down to the descendants of the slave, and it was frequently relatively benign, with the slaves being treated with a soldier's respect for the enemy. Thus Josephus -- who had been a general in the Israelite Army and an important political figure -- did most of his writing while he was a slave to the Romans.)

Other examples of our evolving morality is that we no longer have the horror of 'ceremonial uncleanness' that is in the Old Testament; we only use the death penalty -- at least in the non-Muslim part of the world -- for murder and treason, if at all, and most societies now see it as immoral in any circumstances; and few socities see women as other than full-fledged citizens with, at least, equal rights to men. Nor do we see divorce as only something that men request, but available to women as well, and most socities accept marriage as dissolvable under circumstances other than adultery.

Each of these are evolved advances beyond Testementary morality.

Anonymous said...

We have this "new" morality because we are not under the same law as the old testament. Basically all the morals we have in America come from Christianity. Whithout Christianity, everyone would be doing "what is right in there own minds", which by the way, is what this world is coming to.

Heng said...

Anonymous said: "If God doesn't exist, on what basis are you able to make moral judgments?"

The same basis as you. The God of the Bible is genocidical and advocates killing. Do you base your moral judgments on God's word (the Bible)? If you do, do you condone slavery, infanticide, rape, misogyny, and killing in his name? No, you probably don't. But you do like the good parts of the Bible, and you take those, then dispose of the evil parts of the Bible. If you are doing that, then you are cherry picking the Bible, which means you are not getting your morality from God.

If you were truly getting your morality from God, then you'd follow everything there is in the Bible and not just some parts. On what basis do you decide which parts of the Bible to follow and which parts not to follow? THAT basis is your morality, not what's in the Bible itself. Your morality is in being able to identify what is the right thing to do (e.g. Love thy neighbor) and what is wrong (e.g. stoning a rebellious child to death), from the Bible. THAT morality, you are derriving from the same place the rest of us are getting it from.