Dealing With Vertical Morality

How you treat others depends on which direction you see the world. Vertical morality is when you see morality as a hierarchy—that some authority figure above you has a set of rules and punishments you are supposed to live by. The problem is; if you are able to imagine someone as above you, it’s easier to imagine certain others as below you—those that don’t believe in your rules. Your focus will then tend to be on self preservation and measuring your own piety against your perception of others.

In a horizontal framework you judge your actions based on how they affect others—that your actions are motivated by the positive and negative affects of those around you, who in fact are all your equals.

And this is where we are. The vertical framework is an obnoxious bully system. Loving your neighbor as yourself doesn’t fair very well when yourself is an insufficient, guilt laden sinner who can do nothing of herself.

Love is never fruitful by way of commandment or dogma, but the realization that we are all equals—not in the sight of a god but in the sight of each other. That would be a chapter I’d like to see.

Advertisement

What is Living in Sin?

Christian sin—living in an undocumented or unorthodox sexual relationship. This is the crux of Christian morality—that the churches are in fact sexual and family regulatory societies. There is no redeeming liturgy or spiritual achievement. You are forever in need of religion because religion never prepares to graduate it’s members.

Doctrinal issues—do you believe the correct supernatural things? Do you believe with the correct level of humility, knowing full well that the two contradict each other, as belief leads to arrogance? To believe the wrong doctrine is a sin worthy of battle. But who gets to decide what is the correct version of the imagined godhead?

Have you made Jesus your personal savior, and if so, is he the only incarnation of the god (or the ground of being) to use a less contaminated term? Are there other teachings that are perhaps more useful?

The failure of Christianity is this; love your neighbor as yourself, when you yourself have no source from which that well can spring. Loving yourself is the requisite. Without that there is nothing to give.

But in Christian circles you are the fallen sinner not worthy of love, granted only by the lords tolerance and mercy. It’s no wonder the church has never produced the desired results—the order of operations is backwards.

The Thirty Years war was over doctrinal disagreement and which belief was the correct belief—which literally means, which doctrine is more sufficient to keep people subservient to societies upper-crust. Millions died in that conflict alone because the premise is false. It will never produce the desired results because you are born insufficient for the kingdom of god.

HERE is a ten second video illustrating the source of morality.

Mississippi Abortion

“The Supreme Court should return the issue of abortion to the states, which would mean overruling Roe. “The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice,” he said, adding that the Court should “return to a position of neutrality.”—Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Overturning Roe would not be a neutral act. The Constitution protects liberty, but if women cannot make decisions about their own pregnancies, then they will never have equal status under the Constitution.

At least if the court takes a stance of neutrality, many states would still be available for safe and legal abortion. Either way this is pretty exciting drama.

In Perfect Harmony

Turns out the way, the truth, and the life, is really the half way, the half truth, and a half a life—and it meddles with nature, a serious setback.

Holding to faith as the pinnacle of religious virtue, it has created a great famine of original thought and stunted the collective growth of the species. But we were told it was so much more than it is, which is fine if you never examine any other ways of thinking, or being.

Even atheism with its functional, unlimited connection and hope for humanity—to grant every inhabitant of the planet equal asylum, surpasses religious morality with ethical behavior—simply a more natural, organic development based on fairness.

Religions in general have failed to accept nature as boss. But in the end, after all the information-gathering research, decisions are made by hunches, snap judgments from somewhere in the consciousness, and often against your own judgment. Hunches that have billions of people raising families and living in homes and going on holiday. To the pious skeptic regarding the natural man, isn’t this a testament to the effectiveness of nature and the brain? The more we try to fix the world and shoehorn religious ideals into the public forum, the more we have to look around and say, wow! everyone seems to be getting along just fine, with or without my belief. Nature is best left alone to do its thing. Be happy with that and leave it be—it’s a lot smarter than you think.

“It brings in to play innate and spontaneous intelligence by using it without forcing it. It is fundamental to both the Taoist and Confucian thought, that the natural man is to be trusted, and from their standpoint it appears that the western mistrust of human nature is a kind of schizophrenia”—Alan Watts

This point of view is that the brain is a fundamental organism of nature and is to be trusted without coercion, which is evidenced by the success of humanity—in spite of the various commandments and synthetic religious dogmas. Even the Native American traditions exemplified this process.

I am the walrus, 2020

If The Religious Were Truly Honest

“Lord, I know I have been commanded to love you, but you bore me—you’re too demanding, authoritarian, and domineering. I probably ought to love you—but I’m sorry, I don’t. So rather than lie to you and everyone else I’m going to be straight with you”—Alan Watts

You think an honest expression of your feelings would be disruptive to the church? Not at all. If you are honest and say; I’m not doing this because I love you, or because even I like you—but because the book says I must. And I hate this whole hypocrisy game so here’s the deal.

Making a bargain that is most sensible and honest (for you really ought not to ever lie nor pretend when it comes to religious matters) it would go something like this; Lord, I really don’t love you (although I have tried) and I really often doubt you were the one, but for now I will go along with it to keep harmony in the family, church community, business, or whatever the benefit is (social insecurities) That type of honesty would nurture the inclusion the churches preach, but never attain.

It is formidable to admit unbelief, or non-love of god in the churches. There is much pressure to say you do, even when you don’t, even for an outright atheist.

The command to genuinely love god is the breakdown

Ought one maintain the pretense of love after entering a covenant with the Lord, or should we now see how we can provide ourselves with these spiritual conveniences? First the initiate attempts the first, then your inner self, your consciousness, your personality, the pragmatic side, the you you can’t insist away, demands the second—so you do. And then you go inserting things into the religion you can tolerate. Creating your own scripture to add to the very book that which nothing can be added. You cannot stop you, from being you, any more than you can insist your blood to stop flowing by hoping.

The demand of God to love Him above all else is to assume you can command the true feelings of your heart. “The moment that you subscribe to the idea that your inner feelings can be commanded, you have opened the door to hypocrisy“—Alan Watts

If you tell someone you love them, but know in your heart that you do not love them—your a liar. And the more you insist on that lie, the more you feel it’s your duty to usurp your true feelings, merely gesturing (pretending) to love that other person, the more you get into trouble. Because in love, if anywhere, the truth will win out. You will not be able to sustain the pretense. You will not have the energy to mock the real feeling of love. You all may say that you love the lord, but the actions of the churches (composed of its members) say you tired of that years ago—about 2000 of them

Real honesty is the authentic basis of morality. Real honesty is not pretending that your feelings are other than they are, so you keep your deal inward because the desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts. At the foundation of Christianity we’ve been commanded to love someone we readily admit we can’t comprehend and, other than a couple of neat sermons has shown to be difficult at best to love within our human ability. That would wear anybody down to the nubs.

And by the way, who wants someone to pretend to love them, when they don’t? Certainly not the Lord nor the man or woman. You may want to love god but you really don’t.

Conformity implicitly makes history. The world has seen enough of this type of pretense and would benefit itself to write some different chapters.

Morality is Man Made

That god can inflict death and evil at will and still be “good” is evidence that mans morality did not transude from god, but in spite of him (if there was one)

If god is righteous simply because he says so, there is no difference between god and evil in which he would also be the author of his own immunity. He demonstrates this in scripture that his motives are just—inexcusable in the eyes of normal men, but often justified by obedience.

Deuteronomy 20:16  “But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, 18 the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded”

Even a mere atheist can recognize this brand of totalitarian evil, which is god in his own unique perfectness, being one in the same, inseparable from his evil. Gods laws are not our laws (thankful for that) At least we’re making an effort to be civil. What is it we’re being accused of anyway to be so… fallen? Seeking knowledge? Refusing to do his bidding? Nope

Killing for god is historically acceptable by his command, but really the antithesis of Christian morality is the vile act of unbelief in Jesus as savior of the world—John 16:9 If there is a god, his morality is not transferred to the hearts of men—yet we see historically that through belief in him, we too often justify being like him.

“As surely as I live,’ says the LORD, ‘every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will declare allegiance to God.—Romans 11:13

What type of creature would demand that as a final consummation?

“Thus saith the Lord—the change from the old law to the new law is hereby a superficial duplicity. I will come forth in the last days in the usual tyranny“—

Denaturing Faith—A Return to Civility

“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand“—Bertrand Russell

Isn’t it amusing that so many faithful cannot connect a line of simple dots outside their own beliefs, but think they’re smart enough to know the Christian conundrums are the true gospel of god?

They act like we have never read the material—but if we only hear it enough ways (their interpretation of the clever mans intent) finally, we’ll understand. I don’t believe Christianity because I don’t understand it, I don’t believe it because I do understand it.

By appealing first to faith, anything is possible in the world of religion and decent men have risen to horrible because of it. It demands no scrutiny nor reason, and is simply true because they want it to be, especially when the merciless belief pandemics have had their strongest hold.

“We should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world”—Bertrand Russell

Who now is left to resist the principle of faith that has proven time and again to be the catalyst for ordinary men to be horrible. Fortunately the religion is now so watered down it has proven incapable of enforcement, but that doesn’t keep them from trying to get us back to where we were. The dark ages were not torturous because of unfaithfulness, but because people really believed it.

Faith vs Ethics

The greatest contribution of atheism is the provision of a firm basis for ethical conduct. Atheism explains that morality is a social obligation but not a passport to heaven and salvation. The theistic belief in divine retribution sidetracked moral behavior. Believers were more prone to please the god of their imagination by prayer and ritual than to conform to rules of moral conduct“—Ramachantra Rao

This is the dividing line between worship and personal responsibility. To please god is obedience to belief, even if it’s socially divisive. One excludes, the other includes. Doesn’t really matter what religion you believe, it is that you believe anything at all.

“We have the impulse to resist evil, but through faith permission is granted to inflict it. We step beyond the believers mindset; not content for their own sake, but like a dangerous meme is spread. Not out of genuine concern, but religious mimicry”.

Change is Hard—Hiding is Taxing

Who among us can change our consciousness—our personality? Through the process of religion and Christian morality we learn to conceal it, to pretend—to hide behind a pious facade of deception for the sake of fitting the mask of conformity to appear acceptable.

I have a friend who currently lay in a coma now four weeks from a fall. Yesterday they discontinued life support yet he continues to breath—for now. His pious brother came to visit and the first words out of his mouth, “see what your bad decisions and lies have done for you?”

I happen to know very well the sins of the accusing brother; his endless adulteries and prideful pretending to be an honest, religious man and I confronted him (I was commissioned today to deflect the incoming negativity that was expected from the estranged brothers—one the good son, the other, who lay in the bed in front of us, the prodigal.

I cut off his crescendo and said abruptly; “you stand here over your brother to judge, but the only difference between you and him—his integrity would not allow him to hide who he was. You on the other hand, have hidden it quite well” (his wife wide-eyed and gently nodding in agreement) “while you in your perfect health stand here over your dying brother can’t even change the pride you hate about your own self”.

You see, Chris couldn’t change, but he was cursed with integrity and could not live two lives to appease. While his family sees his life as a tragedy, I see his life as an example of honesty—yet in today’s world and yesterday’s, that integrity proved too much.

Where does the honest man go but to the fringes of society, to alcohol or a recluse life on the edges, or pretend to be who he is not? Some are lucky I guess, to live life in the middle without guilt, or to live without feeling guilty about guilt. Chris is an example to me of the cost of living life on your own terms—something we all wish for but seldom accomplish til it’s too late.

Morality Imprinted By God—Homo Ferens

If morality is imprinted by god into the hearts of man, why is it that feral children adapt the morality of the host species? (so much for god imprinted on the hearts of men) Not only is such social behavior learned, but it is rarely unlearned, with the vast majority of these kids becoming institutionalized after capture—even after being baptized by the well intended, they remain in their adolescence mindset, be it wolf, monkey, antelope, or bear.

Interesting side note; feral children also develop the acute senses of their host species. Nocturnal vision, acute hearing, and sense of smell are all superhuman compared to the tame man, showing adaptations develop much more rapidly than one would expect.

The Source of Morality

Forging more self discipline and restraint than any supposed morality dispensed by god, humans refrain because of what others will think—and will even claim to believe in god for the same reason.

Morality among mankind is nothing more than consensual dance of personal opinion inside a framework of what societies are collectively willing to tolerate, evolved into fairness bit by bit through trial and error, cause and effect, fear of exclusion (and indoctrination, of course)

Skirting religions own morality, “sin” is still committed in private as it always has been, where few reveal what they do alone (in the sole presence of their god) proves they really don’t believe any of it.

Not to place any blame on them for being human, but for pretending to be much more obedient than they are—because of what their fellow believers might see of what lies below the superficial piety and smiles, while inside the anxieties of endless failure eats away at their soul.

The church has quite a racket going, for who can change their consciousness without even knowing what that is, especially by way of commandment and threat? Revolving door repentance, penance, payments and guilt never cease the failures of an artificial morality no one can meet?

Autumn on the mount 8/28/19

Want to Believe

“Humanity desires belief and will sacrifice good sense to get one“—then pay dearly for the ability to hope and pass the litmus test—to have enough belief to be saved.

They pay with their wallets, of course, but what is the real price of fervent belief in ideas that fantasticize spiritual meaning?

Subterfuge—”deceit in order to achieve one’s goals“. Shortcuts to meaning are impossible to produce the desired results—Settling for meaning by way of fear is diminished capacity—through belief we can ignore our deficiencies for third party recompense.

Turn-key, prepackaged, big-box religion has an interesting, if not completely arrogant approach, using subterfuge to present group enlightenment and personal salvation while shortchanging the creature. Firstly, exacting guilt where there is none, chopping humanity down only to notch it back to an average, mediocre, lifetime dependency.

If I believe Jesus is savior and son of god, I can be saved. If I don’t believe this version from lack of evidence and consistency I will be damned to eternal torment—so basically handwaving contradictions and errant outcomes are tests of faith that must become a way of life to keep your senses. Who would present such a far-fetched and cruel story and believe god is good, merciful, kind, and love?

“The truth will set you free“, not belief, not faith. The key to discovering truth is unbelief, for by it we reject incongruity without adhering to systems that stifle our ability to see the world for what it is.

By submitting to belief our journey is carefully guided down the path of mediocrity. The current state of affairs is the objective reality of subjective faith.

Morality—Appearing Better

“A man that firmly believes that God sees everything, knows everything, is everywhere, will, when he is alone commit actions which he never would do in the presence of the meanest of mortals (or the general public). Those even who claim to be the most firmly convinced of the existence of God act every instance as if they did not believe anything about it. There is scarcely a man that does not fear more what he sees than what he does not see—the judgments of men”—Jean Messlier

More powerful than any idea of an all seeing god, men check themselves because of what others will think—even will claim to believe in god for the same reason. No fear of an unseen deity has kept man restrained when he is alone or away from those that know him. That sense of obligation is morality by genuine nature, nurture, and neurology.

Morality among mankind is nothing more than consensus and personal autonomy within a framework of what all persons are collectively willing to tolerate.

Religious doctrine is nothing short of a few, trying to force compliance allowing religious authority to have a higher level of autonomy. And like politicians, they are above the laws they administer for god.

Christian morality is discussed as simple wordplay for recognition—all talk, then go about your business with approval—he’s a believer!

It takes special training to reach that level of hypocrisy.

WTF?

Being First—More Powerful than Right

You know those brands that becomes a household name, even when using the competitions product? Ziplock, Saran Wrap, LEGO’s, and Jell-o come to mind. Proprietary eponyms eventually fade into genericide, losing there luster in sales, but the names live on. Being first is powerful. Staking claims on territory is much the same. Whoever plants their flag first, it can take hundreds of years to get just a slice in return.

Enter religion.

Staking a claim on morality, religion has branded itself as the authoritative source on it. There are better versions available, but morality is synonymous with god and religion. Why? Because they said so—and they have the biggest brand. I need some acetylsalicylic acid—Asprin™️.

But, after unbelief we see morality is a natural phenomenon and find our groove pretty easily. This strivation for balance, homeostasis, civil society, and equilibrium is as natural as cause and effect and our ability to process consequences. We like fairness and we’ll give it to get it—just like other animals.

It’s no secret that a friendlier and more inclusive moral construct is possible, but then the next big lie too has been repeated ad nauseum—and that that, would be too difficult. Not so fast my religious friends. We could work out a rough draft over coffee if it weren’t for the beliefs. Those naggy little seeds that hijacked universal decency and divided us.

We really should do something about this. If the biggest is going to dominate the rules, Islamic morality is just a few years away. Two factions, both wrong, competing to force ideas on the world—and control you and me by legislating them. When that happens, humanism won’t look so bad, will it? Just Google™️ it—on your search engines.

Without Religion There Would be Less Sin, not More.

Reverse psychology is a tool for the young and feeble minded? Not really. It works well on nearly everyone (do you want to go to hell) “Don’t do this, and don’t do that, do what they tell you to, don’t want the devil to come out out your eyes”—Roger Hodgson Religion makes me think the founders just wanted to get their freak-on by making everything a sin, creating even greater allure. “We value people and things unavailable to us—things we can’t have”.

“Lord give me chastity—but not today—Saint Augustine

In order for god to pursue the maximum pleasure by proxy of things he cannot have, forbidding a natural occurrence produces miles of pay-dirt for his viewing pleasure—it increases the things he observes. And he watches everything—things he cannot touch or experience in this vile world.

Want to populate a world with eight billion people to revel in the ensuing madness? Forbid a natural act, keep it taboo to even talk about—and control it. Christianity has not produced any moral behavior. It produces cunning behavior and shortens the joys of life by regiment—but in fact produces more mischievousness and anxiety.

Without the institutions of religious and legal marriage there would be less broken homes, not more. Contracts make people feel fidgety and confined, often taking for granted the contracted companion. There would be less people and more personal responsibility, less mystery and more fact—equals stability. Religion has thrown a wrench in the natural flow of life—it’s brand of morality has made an interesting lure making waiting to live as you wish contrary to commandment, instead of a personal responsibility.

“Atheism does not constitute an end in itself, but a beginning, a necessary base, an ethical foundation“—Jean Meslier

Christianity doesn’t produce better behavior. I’d say a little less talk and a lot more action, but the end game is the destruction of the world. It’s an odd wish, clinging to the past and Hopi g the future ends. There is no amount of belief that will save them from hypocrisy. It will take the joy out of life. A life that passes you by waiting til regret plant it’s ass on your doorstep.

I’ve had countless encounters with believers stating I just don’t believe so I won’t feel guilty for sinning. The fact is, most of the things that were intriguing lost their curious luster after losing faith. It ain’t no big deal.

Even With Gods—Haiku Challenge

I Write Her weekly photo challenge with Susi Bocks. Photo—Ash D Soloman—Lucid Being

#1—Sinful God

In the Gaelic wind—

God repents a wistful glance—

At earthly pleasure—

#2—The Unfolding

Impetuous acts—

Reveal true characters—

Confronted by strength—

#3—Strength

Thunder recoils—

As the hedge-witch reposes—

Confronting spirits—

And one bonus haiku at no extra charge—

#4—Weakness

God himself travails—

Broken from his own restraint—

To glimpse wild beauty—

————————————————–

The image of god caste by the writers as a ‘perfect innocent’ of any wrong doing is in fact a type and shadow of the men of power. Who but the aspiring and entrenched ‘men of words’ can declare their innocence time and again from the same breath that inflicts? Who but god (the writers) can tip their hand in blood and horrors and and call it good? Even very good—Taking a stand against this entrenched deception is in fact the absolute morality the religious seek.

Bending your mind to appease a nefarious belief and honoring atrocious behavior through faith is an obvious sleight of hand played on the trusting minds of humanity.

The Incredible Coyote and Western Morality

Christian vulgarity has reigned it’s bullets down on the North American coyote for over 100 years. The longest standing extermination order in history has killed millions of coyotes and continues its bounty program in most states. Competitive hunts sponsored throughout the nation each year with cash prizes and trophies instill to our kids the right obligation to kill for fun.

“One morning in the late 1930s, the biologist Adolph Murie stood near a game trail in Yellowstone National Park and watched a passing coyote joyously toss a sprig of sagebrush in the air with its mouth, adroitly catch it, and repeat the act every few yards. At the time, Mr. Murie was conducting a federal study intended to prove, definitively, that the coyote was “the archpredator of our time.” But Mr. Murie, whose work ultimately exonerated the animals, was more impressed by that sprig-tossing — proof, he believed, of the joy a wild coyote took in being alive in the world” (1)

The majority of politicians have failed to address this with any passion, and being the good, high moral standard western value Christians that they are, continue the killing spree. A useless torture that drives the coyote without mercy and without effect. “Under persecution, the biologists argued, evolved colonizing mechanisms kicked in for coyotes. They have larger litters. If alpha females die, beta females breed. Pressured, they engage an adaptation called fission-fusion, with packs breaking up and pairs and individuals scattering to the winds and colonizing new areas. In full colonization mode, the scientists found, coyotes could withstand as much as a 70 percent yearly kill rate without suffering any decline in their total population”.

Hunters have their ultimate victim to hunt—one that can outbreed the continued onslaught. How fun is it? While the coyote is hunted for sport, they die in earnest. Leave them to experience their joy, and populations will mitigate in their own necessary way.

Christian values and morals once again are superior delayed in common decency and way off the mark—unless your talking killing for sport.

Sexual Morality- Who is in Charge?

Moralty comes from regions of the brain based on positive and negative input and our ability to process information. That being said, what is the governing force behind sexual morality?

An interesting study showed that societies where women were economically dependent in their relationships, frowned heavily upon promiscuity, while those that had less or no economic dependence on a male partner were less concerned with promiscuity. While religion tends to flourish in societies steeped in female economic dependence.

“Our results do imply a hypothesis for why religious and conservative ideologies themselves tend to be anti-promiscuity: because they emerged in environments characterized by high female economic dependence.

When abrahamic religion talks of the origins of morality, the rarely mentioned but main concern of morality is sexual purity in women. It’s origins are primal, and male dominant religious cultures genealogy is a keypoint. Same as the apes, it was all about maintaining control of food, territory, and sex. Keep the harem closely guarded.

ARTICLE HERE

Gods Absolute Morality

I was told in a comment section that gods absolute morality is only found in Christian faith. I asked him to name an absolute, unchanging moral truth of the Bible, and this was the closest he could go. “I’ll cite to you what seems to me to be about as near to an absolute moral statement as I can think of. In Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 it is written that Jesus told people that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this world or the world to come”—But what if I have not received this Holy Spirit through revelation? I’m told my ego has kept me from accepting jesus.

It this the closest example of an absolute found in scripture. I would like to learn more. Something concrete and unchanging in the Bible’s exemplary moral standard.

Anybody want some crazy?

Here is my final comment to a post here This is a little like Mel, but narrower. Here’s my final reply. We’ll see if it moderates.

Difficult for you to see the humor,

Once I was in your shoes,

Everything so serious,

So much of you to lose,

So much time invested,

In the fable you call god,

That good sense out the window,

Won’t call a fraud a fraud,

For if I may I’ll be so bold,

And try to do with tact,

But everything your selling off,

Has everything but fact,

It has the how’s with maybe’s,

Conjectured ambiguity,

Guesses based on hopes and dreams,

Fails you in realities,

Your quick to point a finger,

But observations firm,

Don’t forget to look around you,

There is so much more to learn,

The books you read are narrow points,

Funnels dropped of religious care,

But faith requires no good sense,

As lone disciplines can attest,

A skewed vision of life and love,

You think you have it all,

Your good book’s made your messy mind,

And you want me to take the fall,

I may not have all the answers yet,

With that I’m not concerned,

With your head shoved so far up your ass,

You’ll fail where others learned.

“IF”

Why are atheists so mad at god? I have heard this several million times, and apologists even posing that statement at famous atheists. The answer as always, is quite simple. Often leaving out one key point, allows apologists a foothold to say “see, they believe in god, they’re just angry with him”. That key point, when discussing atrocities and misery on the world is the word “if”. If there was a god, he is not the kind and loving father religion claims. He is all the things scripture and preachers teach against and more. God kills, tortures, exterminates, shames, oppresses, mutilates, enslaves, and decimates. Those that preach the loudest are usually the most guilty. “God is love” is a ploy to distract the evidence and cover the truth. Giving him credit for a saving one person from a tsunami that kills 300,000 people is just so spiritual, Isn’t it? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it kills like a genocidal maniac, starves out populations, causes death plagues on a fifth of the worlds populations, it is an evil god, not a good god. “If” there was one.

Moral Argument; The Answer in a Nutshell

You want to see this absolutely brilliant crop dusting of the Christian argument for morality see this post and read the comments. They spent the next several hours trying to address only selected verbiage and imho without question lost, and resorted to cherry picking points with Branyanistic name calling and Mel moving the topic goal posts. It was masterful ! Here’s the first comment-

“I’ve always found the morality argument for a god to be the absolute weakest for the simple reason that we have hard evidence that this thing we call “morality,” which is really nothing but a formative sense of good (positive) and bad (negative) behaviour, is a product of neurological processing power. The more neurons, the more accute an organisms understanding of it. Countless studies, across numerous species, prove this beyond any rational doubt. It is not a human phenomena, and its anything but complicated- John Zande