User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Critique my analogy of the morality of god.

Some Christian apologist proclaim, "Because God gave man free will, this is why He cannot show himself and it is you who needs to find Him." Analogy to this could be if a parent abandons their child or puts them up for adoption. The child then grows up realizing that they had to go through life without that parent being around physically to guide them through their life. Even though the parent was not around, supposedly a letter from that parent was given to that child about how they should live their life and that they loved them. If years later when the child is now an adult they do not follow what was demanded of them in that supposed letter or disagreed with what was written, is that child wrong for not obeying a letter of this supposed parent that abandon them. Let's imagine that when this child was old enough to search for the parent that left them, they chosen not to. Is this child wrong for not doing so? Is it wrong if that child decides to doubt how a parent could love them if they were able to casted them out? Is it possible that the child grew up not interested in finding that parent because they find no reason to or they grew up perfectly fine without having to? Let's say the child did want to know who this person was who casted them away, but couldn't because they were given incorrect information about their whereabouts. Maybe through their search they met someone that claimed to be their real parent and because they believed this person they had no reason to look further. And let's say that they wanted so much to believe that they found their real parent and did not need evidence like DNA testing to prove it or was so convinced that no inconsistency, contradiction, or rationality would sway them otherwise. No matter rather this child did not choose to or for whatever reason was not able to find the one true parent that abandon them so many years ago, how is it justifiable for this dead beat parent that left them as a child to say," Because you did not find me, it is your fault. Because it was your choice not to find me I will pass poor judgment on you and punish you. And because I have the authority to judge you wrong, I will also send you to a place where you will suffer for your failure of not finding me." How can one possibly agree that this parent can pass judgment on the actions of a child that they abandoned? How is it moral that this parent is "good" for not showing themselves to this child after years of waiting, but also claiming it is the child that is responsible for figuring out where to find them? To further add to this ethical premise, what if this child grew up to have kids of their own? Is it rational or moral to pass along this obligation of finding the real dead beat parent to future bloodlines and failure to achieve this task also justifiable in sending them to the bad place? If your religious and agree that the abandoned child is not responsible for the actions of a detached parant, what reason do you have that a god can act this way and be moral. Why must the standard for God's behavior be different than the standards of moral behavior you set for yourself.

Not a complete critque here, but just a small note. I dont think any christian would see it as the "parent abandoning the child". They see it more likely as a "run away adolescent". To them this story is not far off though, i would think, but the main difference lays the blame or fault on the youth. Alot of their game is about inherited guilt, and thus it up to you to make your way back to the "father". Thus you already know what is right and who is daddy. This makes it ok for him to not have to show himself.

I don't know if I can say that the Adam and Eve ran away from the God figure. It says that they were banished for disobeying. Running away involves freedom, but God is said to have casted them out and it did not say rather Adam or Eve choose to go. If a Christian were to say that the blame was on the youth, it still doesn't explain anything moral about passing on that blame to future bloodlines. And also the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I just can't see how believers can reconcile a morality based on this story. It just seems Christian don't really think about it and just believe what they are told. It's really discouraging how easily Christians are captured by this flawed morality. How does one explain it except compartmentalizing a part of their reasoning and thought process just in order to protect their beliefs from scrutiny? They bend over backward and flip things completely around to justify a God, even more unbelievable a moral God.

According to the story in the bible, they(adam and eve) sinned which was against gods will. I could see this as a child going against a parents advice, design or running away from the parents authority. Of course, like you say, when you stop and think the whole story out, that no, it doesn't really make sense or use good logic. Believing what they are told is a very strong part of the religion that i was brought up around. They get you into church as young as they can and start putting these stories into your head before you have any ability to really to know the difference in mythology and reality. It took me years to get beyond my forced programming and still, to this day some of it still resides with me, and i am in my 30s now and have been away from religion for well over a decade. I think that you said it pretty well in your last few lines there.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.