Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

head Do you see, that by vehemently insisting that 'if there is a god, he is not concerned about us, or fairness' and attempting to portray the Christian God as being nothing but 'brutal', you could be seen as vindicating the brutal uncaring beliefs, of some people that use Chrsitianity as an excuse, for brutal and uncaring actions?

head, as far as I can tell, is stating the natural and logical consequences of christian belief. if it leads to people doing bad things, it's hardly her/his fault. it's the fault of people pushing those beliefs.

vindicating the brutal, uncaring beliefs

The fact that the bible can be easily used to support brutality is not my fault, it wasn't my idea. Wouldn't an infinitely wise God see the inevitable problems with having a record of required moral values that changes over time, without clearly defining where moral code X ends and where moral code Y starts. Your system of 'God requires us to use our modern day morals to interpret it' isn't backed up by scripture and what's to stop you using that logic to believe any religious text that has brutality in?

The purpose of highlighting how barbaric the bible is, is to see how it is justified by believers, and in turn for believers to see that their moral values are more advanced than anything in the bible including Jesus. No one here would make a person grovel for help for their sick child because of their race.

nothing but brutal

So he's more than just brutal? He's loving and brutal? Why would an infinitely powerful God need to get relatively vulnerable and powerless humans to stab other vulnerable and powerless humans at any point? It's just inexcusable.

and have different expectations of them

But the differences are monumental and contradictory. Are you likening the people in the OT to toddlers? If I was going to have as contradictory morals as God, I wouldn't flinch if my child spilt a cup of squash in the afternoon, whereas earlier that day I had made my other kids stone one of their siblings to death for leaving crumbs on the side. Your analogy just doesn't work because you are not recognising the brutality.

a person with post traumatic stress disorder to someone who is completely well

No, I give up, it must be a trick question, I just can't work out which one you think should be stoned to death, which one is it?

So we can tell the charities that are working to help them that they needn't bother? I just read that 40% of pregnant women in Swaziland have HIV. 100 million children are underweight in the developing world, Doctors in Sudan estimate that up to 30 percent of victims of FGM die following complications, usually infection. Would you chose to swap with a family in sub Saharan desert? Humans tend to make the best of difficult circumstances, but the yawning discrepancy between here and there suggests, shows even, that if there is a god, he is not concerned about us, or fairness.

heck. How you can construe from my post that I think charities shouldn't bother I can't imagine and is horrifying to me. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help poor people because poor people experience God. The bible is full of God admonishing people for not helping the poor (far, far more of that than the examples of brutality etc) Jesus was the ultimate example of how we should work to help the poor, and work tirelessly. dh is involved in a lot of work in east Africa and was brought up there so is very familiar with how things can be, and works hard to do what he can to help those people get a better life or life at all. He and I know how horrifying things can be and the firsthand results of FGM/malaria etc. That you think I would think we shouldn't bother makes me feel really sick tbh, because I think so, so much the opposite.

The yawning discrepancy doesn't show to me that God is not concerned about the poor - the bible shows me that God is, first and foremost, concerned about the poor, and so angry at the rich who do not help. That's where the problem is, not God, people, greedy and apathetic people who do not do enough to redress the balance, me included. I'm sitting in my comfortable house with enough to eat and wear. I could do more. I think God puts a high calling on those who believe in God to do all they can, and tire at the hypocrisy myself. We go without to an extent but never enough. God is so concerned about fairness. 'Act justly and love mercy' was God's definition of goodness, and what God expects of us. If we're not doing that it's our own fault and we are to blame for the poverty worldwide. There are certain natural causes which if one were so inclined one could blame on God/gods - disease etc - but what are we doing about it? That's what it comes down to for me, what am I doing about it? And I'll never let myself off the hook, and partly because I can sense God's desperation for the poor and God's heart of love for them.

I talked about the fact that some would say they experience much of God because I wanted to honour them and their experience, and not generalise that 'ppor people' must feel let down by God. I know it's the opposite for so many, and they have a great deal to teach us about humility and service. I didn't want to let a comment about the third world go without mentioning the millions there who find a relationship with a living God sustaining and life affirming even in the midst of the most hideous of circumstances. That's not another way of saying 'so we shouldn't help, because they have a good time with God.' oh no, not at all.

The reason I posted those facts was because of that quote of yours that I included, which you said in response to me saying how any God that exists seems uninterested in fairness. Your quote was a straw man, I hadn't said that no one in the third world ever experienced pleasure, I spoke about how much more they are likely to suffer. You clearly feel that God is involved in their life, yet there is no evidence for it, how come he heals less people there?

thats where the problem is, not god

He knew it would happen, he started it off. He is infinitely powerful, yet needs weak and flawed humans to clean up the mess caused by his bad planning?

what are we doing about it

But it is an important question, what is God doing? It is possible to ask both questions, it's a false dichotomy to say you can only scrutinise your actions. A God who allows so much suffering is not interested in how people feel. You do what you can but you're only human, the problem is massive and God is supposedly all powerful. He holds you accountable for not doing enough, but he isn't expected to do anything.

I do remember saying the same to myself though, as a way to quieten those uncomfortable truths.

the bible shows me that God is (concerned about the poor)

So you're effectively choosing to ignore reality and facts and believe words on a page that you have no reason to believe is true? If I said I loved my children deeply, but watched them drown when I could prevent it, do you believe my words or actions?

sustaining and life affirming

But millions of them are still starving or sick or both. There is no evidence that this relationship is sustaining them in anyway that is actually practical. Human led charities provide the basics that we know give people a better quality of life such as clean water and vaccinations, whereas the best God can do is make them feel a bit better emotionally? I know whose help I'd be going for.

teach us about humility and service

I'd rather they had what they needed. What they teach us is that we need clean water, education, health care, and a good infrastructure supported by a democracy that upholds secularism.

When you say they teach you about humility and service what do you actually mean?

That's OK head , I'd prefer to face the uncomfortable head on, and it is uncomfortable. I try not to fall into the trap of rationalising it all away through a kind of cognitive dissonance or stopping my ears with a ladidah-it'll-all-be-fine-in-the-end thing. I know the temptation of doing so!

I'd take issue with the less healed in the third world thing, there is generally evidence of more healings taking place in the third world, certainly my experience and that of many others. There's an openness there, a lack of apathy, more expectation almost. I don't know why, but there are more accounts of healing in the third world than in the western world.

You could call it God's bad planning, I might call it God granting freedom to us. I don't think either really quite answer it, but while I live in that mystery I'll continue to do all I can to alleviate the suffering, in this country and in others, to the extent to which I am able.

I've found the writings of Rob Bell and especially Shane Claiborne really helpful in thinking about suffering, God and our accountability and responsibility.

natural causes which if one were so inclined

So inclined? Please elaborate how you explain God watching tsunamis kill thousands without acting and yet he is all loving and merciful?

more accounts of healing

If he is so busy how come there is no evidence in the statistics. So it is our fault when God doesn't answer out prayers for sick children over here?

Do you believe the accounts of miracles caused by other people's gods?

I don't believe all accounts of miracles, whether by someone else's god or by my God, because I am not utterly naive, however much I may appear so I believe what I have seen and what I have heard from those I trust.

A lot to answer there, I am trying to pack for holiday and stop my dc pummelling each other to bits so apologies for being brief.

The bit about believing God is concerned for the poor - I don't think that's ignoring reality, but choosing accountability, choosing to do what God asked of me, and being concerned at the fact that most of humanity have most of the time not behaved in the way God asks of us when it comes to the poor.

I suppose you're asking me more why I think God allows this to happen, rather than asking me to justify my own inaction. The age old question, which is never answered to anyone's satisfaction. I trust God. I trust God is fair and just. Why do I do that? I do that because I experience it in my life, and many others in theirs (just to qualify it's not all about me), again and again. I know, I know this is not enough, it would frustrate me too if I were presenting an argument from atheism. I'm sorry for that.

When my children were tiny, they trusted in me because they loved me and I loved them. It didn't mean things were perfect for them or their world. People still died, they still got sick, there were tears, screaming, tantrums, somtimes they were cold, tired, hungry. It didn't stop them trusting and loving me, because they experienced my love for them. God's love for me is something like this, the experienced, warm love of a parent, but the love that doesn't mean things are perfect or that stuff doesn't go badly wrong. it doesn't mean it's non existent, this love.

I can only find these human terms to describe it in. They are not enough.

head I was using those examples just to illustrate how a person who had an unchanging moral framework still can treat individuals according to their individual needs and the situation at the time. You were stretching my analogy far too far and taking it out of context, twisting the meaning in the process - which I suspect you know. You work in education, if I am not mistaken, so you should be well versed in differentiating according to individual needs.

My point about vindicating brutal and uncaring beliefs is that you are attempting to argue this is the 'correct' way to interpret the Christian Bible. Yet you completely discount what the actual Christians here say concerning their belief, establishing yourself a greater authority on beliefs, which you do not hold yourself. If you believe Christianity is a construct, why would you prefer people have a dysfunctional construct than a functional one? To defend you own atheist stance? If so, this does nothing to meaningfully examine how genuine religious belief operates, in terms of affecting people's own moral frameworks.

^is based on a construct. Typo.

the experienced warm love of a parent

Could you watch your child being murdered and not act? Would you fail to fulfil your child's basic physical needs? Would that make you a good parent? I think the authorities would beg to differ wildly.

what I have seen and what I have heard from those I trust

People can be mistaken and deceived. If you use those methods to determine truth you also need to believe in psychics, ufos, big foot, werewolves, spontaneous combustion, alien abductions, leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, poltergeists, reincarnation to name a few. If you discount any of them, how are you able to?

not behaved in a way God asks of us

Why would he even need to rely on you? According to what the bible says about a human's goodness It's like leaving a baby with a 1 year old and getting upset when it fails to meet the baby's needs. What way do you expect God to behave when dealing with the poor?

stretching my analogy far to far

I merely showed that your analogy cannot accommodate the massive differences in the way God behaves. It's not a case of differentiating. When I'm working I don't give the MAPs gentle encouragement while screaming and throwing rocks at the LAPs. You simply cannot accommodate the OT and the NT using that explanation of an unchanging morality. You would not accept such an explanation anywhere else. If you found out your husband once watched a Paedophile rape a child and did nothing to intervene, how could you ever tally that with the actions of a good man. You couldn't, but with God, you do. I suspect if God was actually physically present you might be a lot less trusting of him, it's because you don't rely on him for anything that you can be so cavalier about his morality.

The 'interpret it through today's eyes' is still dysfunctional thought, it's not a dichotomy. I'm just showing you that the bible does not support the view of Yahweh that most christians have created, And it's highly interesting to hear people try and defend it and the contradictions therein.

The atheist stance needs no defending, I have nothing I need to explain. The stance is 'I'm not convinced by the claims of the known religions' it's a position of refraining from making a decision until I feel I can with good reason. So far those good reasons are nowhere to be found.