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.

I was trying to draw experience of a child's experience of love and trust - not to get into the area of comparing God to a human parent so much. These comparisons fall down in too many places. I knew you'd come back with this when I wrote it, :) and fair enough - but was attempting to explain something in very imperfect language.

I cannot imagine any workable analogy that would allow a loving parent to watch a child die without acting.

head you complain people use a 'straw man' argument against what you are saying. Yet the whole version of Christianity you describe, bears no recognisable relation to what any of the posters, who describe themselves as Christians, believe. So who is setting up a 'straw man', here?

wikipedia definition

"A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."

This does nothing to meaningfully examine how genuine religious belief operates, in terms of affecting people's own moral frameworks.

Christianity you describe bears no recognisable

And that's the whole issue. Christianity as we know has little basis in the NT and none in the OT. That's the whole point I am making. And If you are able to wildly improve on the bible to bring it into today's advanced morals, then why would you even need it at all? It's only a hindrance and something to be explained away. It's not as if christians reject the bible, you want the cutesy bits, but offer no robust logically coherent defence for how you are able to combine the OT with the NT that doesn't smack of cherry picking.

Mad used a straw man when she said about christians in the third world being happy, after I had said about the statistics for suffering in developing countries, I hadn't said that no one was ever happy there. That's a straw man.

^'genuine' as in you can ask the posters actually posting here about their own Christian beliefs, instead of suggesting to them their interpretations, concerning their own faith, are wrong, as if you consider yourself the authority on the Christian Faith, head.

I don't understand the straw man I have used, can you explain?

And that's the whole issue. Christianity as we know has little basis in the NT and none in the OT. That's the whole point I am making.

Which 'we' is this, then? It certainly does not include me. I have referred extensively to scripture in my posts too. So it isn't like I have just taken what I believe from the top of my head, head. Why do you consider the 'we' that includes you and excludes me, an authority on the Christian beliefs that I hold and you do not?

The straw man, you have used, is your whole idea (as stated) of what my Christian beliefs consist of, head.

I have the same bible as you, both our bibles depict God ordering humans to stab babies. Christians use the bible to base their beliefs on. I can read it myself and say 'you said God is like X but here he is doing Y'. You have yet to explain how you are able OT pick and choose in a way that leaves the bible with any authority whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, it's brilliant that you do pick and choose, but it's interesting to hear the explanations for how you get it to sit.

It would be a straw man if you stated that you reject the bible. But you don't.

I meant Christianity as we know it, as in female leadership roles, tolerating divorce, marrying same sex couples and so on

i have referred extensively to scripture

Which is the point. I am also using scripture to show that your God is your own careful construct, one which you have to ignore large passages of the bible to keep. One which you have formulated using your own values, one that has little basis in the bible.

Because I suspect you come from a stance of criticising what is there, instead of being open minded and in order to seek more clarity, head. I explained extensively how I interpreted the account of Jesus and the Canaanite woman, repeatedly countering your claims, Concerning my own beliefs, with valid reasons, yet you dismissed everything I said. Which is your choice, granted, but what I object to, is you insinuating (and at times seemingly insisting), I hold beliefs which are totally abhorrent to me, by twisting the words I had written, completely out of context.

It would be a straw man if you stated that you reject the bible. But you don't.

Please explain.

You are using the bible to build your case for why God is not like the God I am depicting, using the very same bible as you. I am using the same source. You say 'the bible says God is lovely' I say 'the bible says God is nasty' that's not a straw man. A straw man would be me saying something like 'so how come christian's can be horrible' and then getting you to go off down a road that had nothing to do with the first issue, that of using the bible to build your belief upon.

What I am explaining is that your bible depicts God doing abhorrent things, and you are unable to explain how this leaves you able to keep your lovely, kind God. I am not the problem, it's your bible that is causing the issue.

I am confident I have not twisted your words out of context. Could you elaborate?

My understanding of a straw man is misrepresenting your position. You claim the bible shows God is all good, but I claim the same bible shows God behaving badly. It's a valid point, if you are using the bible, which you are.

criticising what is there instead of being open minded

Now that's an ad hom fallacy. You're resorting to bringing my character into your response, to try and make my position look weaker, when my position is based on the facts at hand. If you need to make specific assumptions about my personality to defend your position you've moved away from fact based discourse.

What makes you think I am no open minded? I'll believe it with reason to believe it, that's just what you do in every other area of your life.

What you think of the truth of God, head, as depicted in the Bible, is not relevant to how the Christian beliefs, of the individual posters who hold these beliefs, affect the same Christian poster's moral framework. It is their beliefs affecting their moral framework. Regardless of how, you as an atheist, view God and the Bible, head. This is why I said your argument was a straw man in terms of the OP's question. Yes, there may be other Christians who believe differently but they have not contributed to this thread, so are unable to show how they see their beliefs affecting their own moral framework.

The twisting my words out of context referred, in one part, to you suggesting I would not ask people in hetero relationships to examine their own consciences regarding their actions within a relationship, when I said nothing of the sort. Playing upon stereotypes of Christian bigotry.

Any way I am wary of this becoming somewhat of a slanging match, so I think we'll have to agree to differ.

Your comment about people needing to 'examine their own conscience' over LBGT smacks of awkward tolerance rather than wholehearted support. Not awkward in that you don't want to give unreserved support, but awkward in that you are forced to straddle the bible and your 21st century values.

Said in context of that particular post and my other posts, head it should have been clear that I believe anyone should examine their consciences, regarding how they act in relationships and at all times no matter the particulars of who is involved with who. Then I gave the Biblical basis, concerning my answer, of how acting in love towards one another (as shown in 1 Corinthians 13 and elsewhere) should be seen as the first priority. Which I admit is not completely in depth but is does seem overriding to me. If acting in love is seen as a priority, nobody can excuse any cruel or prejudiced behaviour IMO.

excuse cruel or prejudiced behavior

they could if they take the bible at face value. If 1 Corinthians 13 was the entire bible that'd be great. a sensible god wouldn't include a load of blood thirsty violence at hospital own behest if he was the embodiment of love.

And as to acting in love, there is even a definition, in 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 of the Bible:

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."(NIV)