10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is, Like, Totes Harmful Yo

Recently, the so-called "March for Marriage" took place in Washington DC; a demonstration of bigots "traditionalists" who believe their right to take away other's rights was violated with

the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage last year. And to be honest, my reaction to it was, for the first time, not anger, sadness, bemusement, or anything you might expect. Rather, my first reaction was really just the impassive thought "huh, that's still a thing?". Cause the thing is, I had completely forgotten there was even going to be one this year. Their antics have now become so pathetic that they barely register to me. And that actually feels pretty good. What also feels good is looking over the videos put out covering it. From the looks of it, the turnout was lower than last year, and I imagine it's only going to get lower as the years go on. What was once one of the most rage-inducing bigotries is now dying a slow death. And that's a good thing. 

Still, you can't help but be dismayed at the complete lack of logic these clowns exhibit when they try to make their points. Today I stumbled across one video of the event, which in the description box included an article from the group "TFP Student Action," who state on their website:

Inspired by the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, TFP volunteers are on the front lines of the culture war, working to restore the values of Christian civilization.

Aw. How inspiring. The article in question is titled "10 Reasons Why Homosexual 'Marriage' is Harmful and Must be Opposed." Ooooh, you know this is gonna be backed by just all kinds of facts. (You can't see it, but I can't even type that with a straight face.) So, lets take a look at these so-called 10 reasons and see just what kind of intellectual smack-down these folks have for us.

1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing [sic] of the spouses.

Nope, not even close to right. I have the hardest time imagining anyone who opposes gay marriage and who raises this point could possibly be any sort of historian. Marriage has had disparate definitions throughout history. Jason Colavito soundly refuted this kind of assertion last year, showing that, among other things, throughout history marriage has been largely polygamous. As he says, "virtually every form of family structure can find some support in history, so to choose among them and justify it through appeal to history is essentially picking which religion you think is the One True Faith, or which culture’s mode of expression to endorse."

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

As opposed to the traditional brand of marriage, which as we've seen was largely polyg-amous (and was abundant in the Bible as well). And leave it to Christians to commit the standard naturalistic fallacy. It's natural, therefore it's good! Funny how they never seem to use this logic for virtually everything else in their lives. And this point about the primary purpose of marriage being procreation and raising kids comes up again later, so we'll leave it for then to discuss. (Spoiler: It's as BS as the rest of their claims.)

2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

We've already sorta covered this point above. Again, classic naturalistic fallacy. I would like any Christian to explain to me why all other unnatural things (e.g. clothing, buildings, computers, plumbing, etc.) are perfectly fine, but this one thing is worth blowing their tops over. I do in fact "perceive what is morally good and bad" for me and others around me. And I base that on a rational determination of all the available information and evidence I have to work with. Gay marriage harms no one, and bigots have never presented a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. 

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

Circumvents the purpose of sexual acts huh? I assume that "purpose" is just the baby-making and nothing but the baby-making. Except if that's the case, why am I only seeing a march for this one specific issue? Where are the marches against condoms? Blowjobs? Threesomes? No, it's only this one "violation" of natural law that Christians are so obsessed 
with. 

And a few things to consider in regards to Paul: 1) In addition to homosexuality, Paul also taught that drunkards, adulterers, and idolaters are sinners who won't make it into heaven (but slavery is ok.) Again, don't see any marches against these kinds of people. (And I would argue at least one of them made up a significant portion of the folks who took part in this march.) 2) If the natural law is "inscribed" on the heart of every person, why do so many people see nothing wrong with homosexuality? Now they might say it's the "hardened 
hearts" of secular folk like me, but that doesn't explain the numerous Christian groups who openly support same-sex marriage. What's the explanation for them? Hardness of heart? Did God forget to write the law in them? I'm sure they'll have an excuse, like everything else.

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

And yet despite this, there are no massive marches in protest against single people adopting. Jesus, this is getting absurd. What does this have to do with gay couples raising kids?

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.”

Prove it. The anti-gay crowd has been claiming things like this for decades without any hard evidence to back it up. To date there are no studies showing that children raised by gay parents are any worse off than children raised by straight couples. Even the frequently touted "Regnerus Study" was shown to actually support the idea that gay couples raise children just fine. And a wealth of peer-reviewed studies support this conclusion as well. So for those who say gay parents don't raise children as well as straight parents, I say put up or shut up.

A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

And the relevance of this is what? Even supposing that gay couples don't raise children as well as straight couples, how does this lead to the conclusion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Christians are aware of the fact that you don't have to have kids when you're married, right? If gay couples were bad at raising children, that would, at most, be grounds for forbidding them from adopting kids and raising them. But why then would they not be allowed to get married? How does this follow?

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

Yes, those gay folk who put in all that time and extra effort to get a kid because they can't have one naturally are sure to make bad parents who don't have a child's best interests at heart. Look at these horrid people. But seriously, I have the sneaking suspicion the people who wrote this article are just effing creeps. 

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

Translation: Gays and bisexuals and trans-people, oh my! What these folk refer to as a "lifestyle," I'm pretty sure gay people just refer to as a "life." No, allowing gays to marry doesn't devalue "traditional" marriage, nor does it weaken public morality. But I'm sure people like these trying to institute their own theocratic rules over society does harm society, and does so in a far worse way.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Yep, and it's a good thing God was ok with interracial marriage too... oh wait. Never mind. Regardless of what these people think counts as a valid difference, the only "obstacle" to marriage they've cited so far is that gay people can't naturally have kids. And as we've seen, this isn't even an obstacle in the first place. 

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Again, that impossibility is that gay couples can't naturally have kids, which is irrelevant. Say it with me Christians; you don't have to have kids to get married. And what about couples who are infertile? It's "biologically impossible" for them to have children too. Should they not be allowed to get married? How about post-menopausal women? The elderly? Women with their tubes tied and men with vasectomies? The inconsistency is staggering, let me tell ya.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

Except there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is natural and that people are born that way. And there's that little fact that gay people themselves have told us they were born that way too. But hey, I guess they all must be liars. Whoda thunk it? And holy shit, are we really only half way through this thing?!

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

First of all, am I reading this correctly? Did you just refer to using contraception as "violence to nature"? Um, overreact much? Again, you seem to have missed the point that having children is optional in a marriage. Op. Tion. Al. Repeat enough times and maybe it will finally sink in. 

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

Um, yeah. And straight couples who can't naturally have children do these kinds of things too. They circumvent nature just as much when they use these exact same methods. Where's their marches, huh? And did it ever occur to you that maybe the fact that gay people are willing to go through so much extra effort to have kids might be evidence they will make great parents up for the job? The fact is that, unlike straight couples, gay couples never have accidental children. Every time they have kids, it is intentional and carefully planned. But you'll never hear bigots put it that way. All that matters to them is that it's "unnatural" (i.e. icky).

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

And what stops the State from bestowing the same benefits on gay couples who are raising kids? Oh right, you think gay people shouldn't even have kids in the first place. But they are raising kids, and they will get those same benefits too. So yeah. Basically, tough shit.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

Yes, it must just be that personal gratification those pesky gays want (which itself I guess is a bad thing all on its own too?). It couldn't possibly be all those other legal benefits (like Social Security benefits, filing joint tax returns, immigration rights, and medical coverage), which are provided by marriage and not by civil unions. Nah, that couldn't be it. 

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

Oh no, kids will learn that a totally harmless union is totally harmless and allowed? Oh the humanity! Surely kids will be scarred for life by such a thing.... Or not. Personally I think the only "children" who will be bothered by gay marriage are the adult children who wrote this article. And yeah, if you have a State job and you refuse to do that job, there's gonna be repercussions (wink wink Kim Davis). Shocking, I know.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

Yes, it's terrible that we're expecting these people to basically just grow the fuck up. Again, if you have a State job, that's how it goes. Private groups however (such as private churches) don't have to abide by any of that though. I and others have said it many times before: if you don't approve of gay marriage, fine. The solution is simple. Don't get gay married. Problem solved. It's when you try and stop others from doing that that it becomes a problem. Oh, but I forgot that it's the Christians who are the ones being oppressed. The Christians who currently make up the vast majority of the country who are being oppressed. My mistake.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

I have to give them some props here. It took them this long to get to the good 'ol slippery slope fallacy. I expected it to pop up way sooner. It's such a batshit crazy argument that I hardly feel like it needs a thorough rebuttal. Fortunately, John Corvino took the time and published such a rebuttal years ago. Basically, I can sum it up in one sentence: Judge and assess everything based on its own merits. There ya go. If that's too hard of a concept for these people to grasp, then they need to get back in the caves. 

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

While I think it is a civil rights movement as well, there's no doubt it's a moral issue too. And it's morally wrong to object to such unions. So get over yourselves.

10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Again, I feel like giving them some props is in order. It's refreshing to see that they make no secret that their religious beliefs are what truly drives them. They even go as far to say that it's the most important reason. Which in a way really takes the air out of all the other reasons they've given above. It tells me that, even if the previous nine issues were soundly refuted, they wouldn't care. They would still go on being opposed to same-sex marriage just because their god doesn't like it. It's a delusion on a grand scale.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Sigh. I'll just set aside the fact that there's no good evidence for God's existence in the first place (really, anyone who knows me knows that's a given with me), and let's just go over what kind of god you're telling us we should be worshiping. The same god who approves of mass murder, human sacrifice, slavery (including sex slavery), suppressing free speech, and a whole host of other horrendous things, is the god we should be worshiping. And this is what these people think children should be learning about instead of consensual gay relationships. The Bible's moral teachings are anything but what we should base our society's norms on. And for the record, we're told by this same god that gays ought to be killed. But will these folk ever mention that? I think you already know the answer.

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

No, this story doesn't say God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality. Rather, the Bible teaches that their sin was that their inhabitants were self-indulgent and callous. It never says it was because they were gay. (See further discussion in John Corvino, What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, pp. 25-31.)

And that's the end of it. Ten reasons why homosexuality is like, so totally the bane of our existence. Or not. I'm honestly not really mad about this anymore. Just tired. Oh by the great Zarquon so tired. Gay marriage has been legal nationwide for over a year now, and as far as I can tell, society is no worse for it. Yes, we still have problems with LGBTQ rights and equality, and there's still a lot of work to be done. But the consistent trend I've noticed about these problems is that none of them are actually caused by the LGBTQ community. Rather, it is their opponents who are still causing all the problems, whether they know it or not. People like the group who put out this article.

At the end of their ten (non)reasons for rejecting gay marriage, they make sure to add a lengthy disclaimer ensuring everyone that they "have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual." Furthermore, they are "filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin." Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then you're all still a bunch of bigots living in the Bronze Age. The so-called "struggle" these people are going through is not because they are gay. It is because of intolerant buffoons like you who constantly tell them they are sinners, when in fact they're doing nothing wrong. And despite all the efforts put out by bigots such as yourselves, your arguments are as weak as ever. But that's to be expected, since they're the same debunked arguments we've heard for years. But no matter how many times they get refuted, you guys just keep coming back for more. It's Einsteinian insanity.

Just as an aside, the lovely Cristina Rad made a video about a year ago that goes over pretty much everything I went through, and more. If you want a nice and quick rebuttal to standard anti-gay arguments like the ones I've addressed above, I highly recommend you check that out. (Not least of which because she's more articulate, more concise, and way funnier than me.)

[Quick update: Well wouldn't you know it, I tried posting my response to their website, and pretty quickly it got deleted. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. And apparently this is a pretty frequent thing they do (example, example, example). I always do forget that free speech is only allowed when you're a Christian. When will I learn?]

Before

After

The Benefits of Accepting Reality

For those of you unfamiliar with PragerU (and lucky SOBs you are if that's the case), it's a... ahem... "university," dedicated to "promoting knowledge and clarity on life's biggest and most interesting topics." Well, that'd be all well and good, if it was an actual university and not just some web-series promoting conservative Christian propaganda. The site's YouTube channel has produced a plethora of lol-inducing responses from others, which I highly recommend you spend an afternoon watching. Recently a friend of mine mentioned a new video they've posted, and no surprise at all it's as cringingly-bad as I expected.

This one is presented by a Prager regular; Peter Kreeft, a Catholic apologist who has previously argued that the reason God let's so much evil exist in the world is basically because "God knows better than we do." And in this video, Kreeft wants to argue not so much that God exists (which he's done before, and failed miserably), but that belief in God gives you a much better life. And to back this up he lists off a number of points which contrast a god-reality with a godless one. This of course is a pretty common tactic used by theists, which is to play on the emotions of others and make them want to believe in God because it will make them feel better. They also want to highlight how miserable our lives would be if there was no god in it. I get particularly annoyed at this tactic, since it's just a classic "appeal to emotion" fallacy that really should have no place in discussions like these. Even granting everything Kreeft says about a godless reality is true, that doesn't change whatever the nature of reality actually is. There's no reason for us to expect whatever the ultimate truth about reality turns out to be will make us happy. But that doesn't stop it from being the truth. And I'd rather live my life believing as many true things as possible, and disbelieving as many false things as possible. But what points does Kreeft make? And do they have any merit. Turns out, no. Here's the points he brings about how a god-filled reality is just so dang better than a godless one.

If God exists, the presence of evil makes sense.

Here Kreeft roles out the usual talk about why God allows evil to exist in the world; to allow us to exercise our free will. Setting aside the fact that it isn't even established that free will exists (a point even Christians can't seem to agree on), I've never heard any rational reason why allowing us free will in an evil world would be a better option than not allowing free will in a good world. What does it benefit us to exercise our free will if that means we're going to experience so much pain and suffering in the world? Personally, if having free will 
guarantees that others will suffer so much in this life, then I'd rather not have it. But Kreeft thinks the other benefit to this is that with the existence of God also comes the existence of real justice. As he says, "God will reconcile all injustices in the end." Except that on 
Christian theism, there is no guarantee that those who have committed truly horrible 
atrocities will pay any sort of price. Jesus himself says he'll forgive any sin as long as one repents and believes in him (except apostates; e.g. Mt 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:9-10). On theism, the atheist who's never harmed anyone in his/her life has a better chance of ending up in hell than the serial murderer who gives their life to Christ before they die. Does that sound like justice? 

Kreeft also says that if there's no God, "life is one big crapshoot." Not at all. If there's no God, life is what we make of it and can be happy in that knowledge. But Kreeft disagrees in his following points.

If God exists, morality is a real, objective fact about the world.

We then get the talk about how God serves as the basis for real objective morality, and that without God "morality is just the rules we make up for this little game of life that we play." As opposed to the rules God himself has made up for us to play in this life. Because by "objec-tive," what Kreeft really means is "the arbitrary whims of a subjective agent who is just making us do whatever he wants us to do." Christians have long had this problem pointed out to them before; that if morality is really grounded in God, then it follows that morality is just arbitrary and entirely non-objective. The standard response has become to simply say that God's actions and commands are good because he himself is good, in accordance 

with his nature. But the problem here is, how have we concluded his nature is good? Because at the end of the day, whatever judgements we make about the actions and nature of God are, by definition, our judgements. Whether God imbues morality through his commands or through us in some telepathic way, we're always the ones reaching the conclusions about what we think about it. As Hector Avalos has put it:

If one says something is moral because God says so, then this still renders us the judge of morality, for we are the ones making the judgement that "whatever God calls good is what shall be called good." Even if one says that God planted our sense of goodness in us, we must still judge that something God planted in us is good. There is no way to escape this circle. [Hector Avalos, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, p. 351]

Of course, it's entirely possible that people like Kreeft are not making a judgment at all about God's actions and commands. He could just be accepting of God's actions no matter what he does. If so, then I think Dr. Kreeft needs to stop saying he's following God's objective morality, and just acknowledge what he's really doing; he's just following God's commands. Not moral commands, just commands. He's just doing whatever God tells him to do. And there's nothing "objective" about that. And contrary to what Kreeft asserts about morality without God just reducing to "rules we make up," the fact of the matter is the absence of God changes nothing about the objective nature of the world we currently live in. There are objective facts about what hurts us, what's good for us, and what ultimately allows us to live better lives. And a morality based on that is entirely demonstrable and objective, as objective as something can get. (See the demonstration of this in Richard Carrier, "Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them)," published in The End of Christianity, ed. John Loftus, pp. 333-58, 420-29.)

If God Exists, Love is the Nature of an Eternal Reality.

Kreeft's next point is a weird one; that the existence of God apparently makes the love we feel for others more meaningful, as opposed to a godless reality where "love is just a fleeting feeling," and that it's "no more than a bunch of chemical and neurological interactions." What we see here is another example of Christians committing what is known as the modo hoc fallacy; the idea that the material makeup of something matters more than the arrangement of said material. Even if there's nothing more to love than just neurological and chemical processes in our brains, why is that a bad thing? Kreeft never says, nor have I heard any other Christian explain why either. Whether caused by purely material phenomena, or caused by the existence of some kind supernatural woo inside me, the fact that I can love at all is a wonderful thing, regardless of whatever's the cause of it. 

Furthermore, there's no explanation on Kreeft's part about why God's existence makes love any more valuable. After all, nothing about God's supposed existence seems to keep people loving each other "eternally." People fall in and out of love all the time in this life. It very much can be a "fleeting feeling," even if God does exist. And even if they somehow still end up loving each other in an afterlife, there's nothing to guarantee they will even end up together. One may end up in heaven, and one may end up in hell. 

If God Exists, You are of Infinite Value.

This one could pretty much sum up Kreeft's entire video; our lives are utterly pointless and insignificant if there's no God. But with God, "he knows you, as a parent knows his child." Again, Kreeft never explains how God's existence gives our lives any meaning whatsoever. How does God existing give my life value? My life's valuable because God says so? So what? How does God saying that make it so? These are questions theists simply have no answers to. What exactly does it say about my value and worth that I apparently need such things ultimately bestowed upon me by someone else? The idea that I've gone out in life and given my life meaning and value matters so much more to me. The sense of accom-plishment I feel in the knowledge that I created my own meaning and purpose, rather than having it handed down to me by someone else, fills me with a real, actual sense of value. What meaning could my life possibly have if I did nothing to make more of it, even if a God said there was meaning to it? None that I can see.

For even Kreeft must accept that meaning and purpose must eventually reduce to whatever one makes of it. After all, Christians don't seem to have a problem with the notion that God himself had no creator, yet his life has value. In other words, there are no other gods around to bestow meaning and value upon God's life, so even his worth must ultimately be self-bestowed. But if God can find meaning and purpose without having it given to him by others, then so to can humans. 

Humans are not "as insignificant as a rock on an unknown planet." We are significant to each other, because we, as social animals, have evolved brains that care about other humans, which in turn is the result of observing that things work out better for us if we do care about the others around us. Even if we ultimately end up creating our meaning and value, nothing about that renders it any less fulfilling or significant. There may not be a meaning of life, but there is meaning in life.

If God Exists, Death is Conquered.

Here we get into the talk about how we will have life even after our bodies die, and that with God "there is a reality outside of space and time." Supposing that's true, there's still the question of exactly what the nature of that reality is. Because according to Christians, one half of that reality may be an eternal bliss, but the other half is perpetual torment and despair. And as we've seen, such torment could be given to those whose greatest crime is that they didn't believe that a dead Jewish man came back to life. It may be the case that "everyone [I] love" will be "consigned to oblivion." But I would much rather my loved ones simply stopped existing and experienced nothing than have them potentially be tortured for all of eternity in a lake of fire.

Still, according to Kreeft we should really like the idea of an afterlife, since if there isn't one then "there is nothing immortal" and therefore "life is pointless." First of all, it isn't even clear to me how important Christians think the duration of our lives is in regards to how much meaning our lives have. For example, even William Lane Craig has argued that even if we could live forever, our lives would still be pointless if God didn't exist (see William Lane Craig, On Guard, pp. 32-33). For him, it seems that any value we might have ultimately rests on God's existence. Of course, like Kreeft, Craig never justifies how God's existence 
gives us any sort of ultimate meaning. 

The error committed by Kreeft is the assumption that life having only finite significance 
equates to life having no significance whatsoever. For him, it's either all or nothing. Either life has eternal significance, or it has none. There's no middle-ground. This is about as black-and-white thinking as one can get. Yes, it may be true that my life will eventually come to a permanent end, and that I will no longer exist in any relevant way. And sure, I'd love for me and my loved ones to live longer (other atheists have said as much; e.g. David 
Silverman, Fighting God, p. 1). It's a bummer that I won't get to live longer. However, nothing about that fact diminishes the value of the life that I have now. If anything, that fact makes my life even more valuable, since I know it's so limited. Ever since I became an atheist, I've valued my life far more than when I believed in God. I'm grateful for every moment I have left on earth. Kreeft and others like him may want their lives to have eternal significance, but in doing so I think they take focus away from the lives they currently have, which is the one that we can be sure actually does exist. 

Why God Doesn't Give us Proof

All of this emotional appeal would ultimately be unnecessary if God made it plainly clear that he exists. But according to Kreeft, the reason God doesn't give us absolute proof of his existence is "so that we're free to choose or not to choose to believe in him." Um, excuse me? How does that make any sense? If the point is about believing that God exists, I don't see how that really comes down to a "choice." In other words, I don't see belief as 
necessarily a matter of choice. I believe what I believe based on whatever information I'm given, not what I want to be the case. If God hasn't provided me with the necessary 
information to allow me to infer his existence, then it's really the case that I can't help but lack a belief in him. My reason for not believing in God is the same reason anyone ever has for when they don't believe something; I don't have sufficient evidence to believe. If the information's not there, there's nothing I can do about it, and that would really be God's fault and no one else's. 

Furthermore, if the point is that God withholds proof of his existence so that we were free to choose whether or not to follow him (rather than just believe in his existence), then this is no better. After all, the only way it seems anyone can ever make a rational, fully-informed decision is to be, well, fully informed. And this would have nothing to do with restricting our choices in the matter. If God made himself and his wishes plainly clear to us, we could still choose not to follow him, but would at least be aware of all the relevant information in making a decision like that. So whichever way you slice it, our being free to choose to believe in God offers no sound reason for God's apparent refusal to give us absolute proof.

Kreeft asks us if we at least "hope there is a good God." And to that, I say sure. And as I've indicated earlier, other atheists would like that too (e.g. Silverman, Fighting God, p. 1; Richard Carrier, Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 253-55). But there is an important
distinction to make, and Kreeft himself may even know what that is. Note that he is careful to add the qualifier that a "good" god is what people hope for. Yes, if there existed a god who was truly good and was the sort of person worth worshiping, you'd get no objections from me. But there's no justification that whatever gods exist are even good in the first place. Certainly even Kreeft would admit that he wouldn't want to worship a god who was actually evil. Yet atheists have been making the case for years that that's exactly the sort of god Christians appear to be worshiping. The Old Testament God certainly appears that way. And even Jesus may not have been the pillar or morality and ethics that he's usually 
championed to be. So I would ask any Christian this: if it could be demonstrated that the god you believe in actually was evil, would you still want to continue following him?

You'll Lose Nothing, and Gain Everything

In what I can only call a last-ditch effort to sway the viewer, Kreeft throws out a Pascal's Wager-style appeal to the notion that there's no downside to acting as though God exists, since "you'll lose nothing, and you gain everything." Except that this isn't even remotely true. Kreeft tries to make the case that believers are "happier, live longer, and are more 
charitable," to which I can only respond: wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no support for the assertion that believers live their lives any better than nonbelievers. Likewise, there is support for the idea that religion, by its very nature, inherently produces violence by means of constantly keeping everyone fighting over whose religion is actually true. In that sense, we very much do have things to potentially lose. 

And to finish up his presentation, Kreeft asks all the unbelievers watching to "say the skeptic's prayer," so that God may enter their lives and make real believers out of them. Setting aside the fact that many atheists and agnostics already tried this when they were believers (and no god came answering; example, example, example, example), I've always found it odd why God would need anyone to ask him to make his presence known. Why should we have to pray to God to get him to come into our lives? Even if Kreeft wants to go the route of many Christians and just assume atheists are "hard-hearted" and aren't trying to reach out to God, why should that matter? Is my will so powerful that I can even block God out of my mind? Or if God just chooses not to make himself known because of us supposedly stubborn atheists, that just makes God so absurdly petty that it really says more about him than it does us. I simply go where the evidence takes me. If it ends up taking me to God, fine. But to date it never has. And if God has the ability to make himself known to me in a direct and obvious way, then that falls on him and no one else. I have no interest in receiving "the gift of faith," as Kreeft says we'll get from God, since I have no interest in basing my worldview on belief without evidence.

In conclusion, Kreeft's presentation amounts to little more than just a marketing ploy, 
advertising how great a life with God would be compared to a life without him. But as we've seen, there's a whole lot of fine-print Kreeft leaves out, showing that even a life with God is no guarantee of a good life. And as I've said already, any supposed benefits from a 
theistic worldview says nothing about the factual accuracy of that worldview. But I say not only is a purely naturalistic worldview more likely to be correct, it is also one that can be purposeful and rewarding, filled with meaning and joy. Once we work out what the nature of reality actually is, we can work to make that reality as joyous and purposeful as we want. No god needed. 

"Without God, are we nothing? Tell that to those millions of good people... It is true there is no purpose of life. Nor should we want there to be a purpose of life. If there is a purpose of life, that cheapens life. That makes us less.... If there is a god we are subservient in the universe. We are secondary. We are children. We are slaves. If there is a god, we are truly nothing." -Dan Barker

God Bless Brick Stone

Pardon the expression.
 

More of his videos here.

Also, I had no idea that Megan Phelps left the church. Good for her. My faith in humanity gets a little bit restored by news like that.

Fudged Vision

Do you ever have those days when you come across a video online that just makes your brain want to explode? Well today I found several of those. The YouTube channel visionfudge has many short videos dealing with Christian apologetics. Below are my three "favorite."



This video gives us the usual spin about the problem of evil, and how no matter what happens in the world, we should just "trust" God. Yep. Just keep on trusting that unseen babysitter cause he obviously has a plan for us. I especially love his comment about how "nothing is thrown our way that is beyond our strength to handle." Uh... not really the case for everyone who has ever died, don't ya think? Care to explain how this works for a small child who has cancer? Don't you think death by cancer was more than the child could handle? And you gotta love the usual talk of how "nobody is really good." I'll grant that no human on this earth is perfect. But there is such a thing as balanced justice. Would any rationale person conclude that everyone who died in the holocaust was imperfect enough to have had that done to them? And it's not like God hasn't interfered before to help those he felt were being treated unjustly (at least according to the Bible). If there really is a God, than we certainly should question why bad things happen to good people and vice versa, because it really doesn't make any sense. Unless of course there is no God. Then it makes perfect sense.

Here we get a nice little lesson about how "unique" Jesus is. Apparently no other religion forgives sin. Might be a good idea to actually read what these other religions teach before trying to tell us what they don't teach.

• Judaism
• Islam
• Buddhism
• Hinduism
• Jainism

And Jesus certainly can be seen as unique due to his death and resurrection. Well, as long as you ignore this.

And finally...

I read this quote on Facebook and I think it summarizes the problem here nicely.

"Yep. All those children stricken with cancer and killed by natural disasters did things their own way, therefor he didn't help them. Makes perfect sense!"

Really people, let's be sensible here. This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for me to take Christians seriously. I'm sure the makers of these videos are well intentioned, but the deliberate ignorance they're spouting is just too much. Visit their channel if you must, but please have some sort of fact-checker handy when doing so.

Delusional Christians Defend God's Atrocities

Version 1.0, pub. 6/14/2012
Version 1.1, pub. 6/19/2012 (addition to Slavery section)

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today I will be looking at a video response put together by two Christians, Kyle and Laura, on YouTube. Their video is a response to TheThinkingAtheist's video "Morality Without God." In it, they attempt to defend the horrific atrocities God carriers out in the Bible, and they attempt to show how TheThinkingAtheist took the cited Bible passages out of context. Here I will show why their excuses for God fall well short of refuting the central premise of TheThinkingAtheist's video; that the God of the Bible is simply a horrific monster.

[Note: Any quotes in red are direct quotes from either Kyle or Laura]



We first should note that many of the arguments they present in their two-part video rely on their preconceived notions of God and Christianity.

In other words, they start with the conclusion that God actually exists and then proceed to defend him, for God is perfect and therefore perfectly good. This of course is pure circular logic on their part, and I can say with great confidence that they would never defend the actions of anyone else who did the same things as Yahweh. In their world, God can do no wrong. As we shall see, this circular reasoning applies to many of the arguments presented throughout their videos.

A case in point is Kyle's first suggestion that God is not "evil," but that he merely "defies our expectations of what is good." These so-called "expectations" are what we humans have concluded is morally right through careful logic and detailed studies. If God cannot even live up to our expectations, then he is clearly going against what common sense and basic logic has taught the human race for thousands of years. This is not a God I would ever support. Now let us examine each point they bring up and see if they hold up to scrutiny.

Rape/Incest

In "Morality Without God" (MWG), TheThinkingAtheist (TTA) cites the story found in Gen. 19:6 and 19:33-34 where Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob as evidence that God endorses rape. Kyle's answer to this is that God himself did not endorse this decision, and that "God was doubtlessly disappointed with Lot's decision." One thing needs to be made clear before we continue. In assessing God and his morality, we should keep in mind not just what God says in the Bible, but also what he doesn't say. Christians may argue that God's silence about an issue does not denote that he endorses it, but by not mentioning an issue he leaves it up to his imperfect humans to figure it out. And this cannot be a "free-will" issue, for if it were, why did God bother giving us the Ten Commandments? Discussing a certain topic shows us that that particular issue is important to him. God could very easily have just said "rape is wrong," and while that might not have completely stopped rape in the future, it certainly wouldn't have hurt.

That being said, Kyle provides us with no evidence to show that God was "disappointed" with Lot's actions. God was so disappointed with Lot that he still saved him from the city he was about to destroy? There is not a negative word about Lot found anywhere in the Bible. In fact, Lot is even referred to as "just" and "a righteous man" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. It is obvious that the Bible, for whatever reason, sees Lot as one of its heroes.

Although we do not find endorsement of rape in this passage per se, there are other passages which clearly do show just that. For example, in Deut. 22:28-29, if a man rapes a virgin, he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver, and then he must marry her. Yes, a fitting punishment indeed. A woman raped must now live forever with her rapist. Furthermore, we find in Deut. 21:10-11 and Num. 31:15-18 that you evidently can own sex slaves, i.e. forced sex. Again, there is not a word against rape in the Bible, and several passages endorsing it. (For more on rape in the Bible, see "What the Bible says about Rape" and "Rape in the Bible")

As for Kyle's second assertion, that God does not endorse incest, there are certainly passages in the Bible which do support this. It seems God may have changed his mind regarding this issue, but why would an all-powerful perfect God need to change his mind about anything? Neither of Kyle's arguments are supported by the evidence he presents, which turns out to actually be very little evidence.

Biblical Hermeneutics

We are then treated to a discussion from Laura about biblical hermeneutics; the science of how to properly evaluate Biblical scripture. Laura tells us that TTA took the Bible passages cited out of context and put his own spin on them. She says:

"It seems that it makes more sense to search for the truth rather than looking at things narrowly and falsely in order to get a justification for a predetermined thought or prejudice that one may have."

 Oh dear...



That's right. We can just assume that the makers of this response video in no way have a "predetermined thought or prejudice." Contrary to what Laura claims, TTA did not take the passages out of context. While God may not endorse everything everyone does in the Bible, there are certainly many places where he does not condemn bad behavior either. As we have established, this is very significant. This is merely another excuse the video trots out in order to defend God's horribleness.

Human Sacrifice

Laura proceeds to discuss the Bible's stance on human sacrifice, and focuses on the cited passage in TTA's video, Judges 11:30-39. In this passage, the character of Jephthah vows to God that he will sacrifice the first person who walks out of his home in return for victory in war. Laura's reasoning is that Jephthah went against God's wishes, since God supposedly condemned slavery earlier in Deut. 18:9-11. However, looking more closely at this issue, we see that this is not the whole story. First, we should note that, like Lot, even though Jephthah goes against what God wants, he still is not punished or scrutinized in any direct way by God himself. If God did not want him to do that, God could simply have said "don't do that." Now some of you are probably saying "But wait! He did say not to do that! He already condemned human sacrifice!" Which leads me to my second point. Let's take a look at even earlier passages where God condemns human sacrifice. God also condemns human sacrifice in Lev. 18:21 and Lev. 20:2. Furthermore, human sacrifice is again condemned in 2 Kings 21:6. So it seems that God is pretty much against human sacrifice, right? Well, not quite. Reading these passages in full, we see a common pattern amongst them other than just sacrifice.

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." -Lev. 18:21 (emphasis added)

"Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." -Lev. 20:2 (emphasis added)

"And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger." -2 Kings 21:6 [Note that earlier 2 Kings 21:1-3 says: "Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them."] (emphasis added)

The pattern we see in these passages, other than human sacrifice occurring, is that these sacrifices were all being done for what the Bible considered to be false gods. Therefore, it seems that for the vast majority of the Bible, God is not against human sacrifice per se, but rather human sacrifice to other gods. Molech was the ancient Ammonite god that was strongly associated with child sacrifice, and the term Baal (or Ba'al) generally referred to a false god. In 2 Kings 23:10, sacrifice to Molech is once again condemned, and Jeremiah 32:35 states:

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." (emphasis added)

Clearly what the Bible saw as sinful was not in fact human sacrifice as a whole. It just wasn't right when it was done for anyone other than Yahweh. As noted by biblical scholar Dr. Hector Avalos:

[I]t was the late texts that sought to substitute animals for actual human first-born sons. Genesis 22, which shows Yahweh substituting a ram for Isaac, is part of a late biblical tradition. Indeed, in Genesis 22, Abraham seems to presume that child sacrifice is not an impossible request, and it is the substitution of the ram that is unexpected. For most of biblical history, Yahweh was not against child sacrifice per se, but rather against child sacrifice to other gods. Even the prophet Micah ponders whether he should sacrifice his oldest son "as a sin offering" to Yahweh, although he rejects doing so in the end (6:6-8). [Quoted from: Yahweh is a Moral Monster, by Dr. Hector Avalos; published in The Christian Delusion, ed. by John W. Loftus, pg. 227]

There are passages where God does indeed advocate human sacrifice. For example, Ezekiel 20:25-26 states:

"Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD." (emphasis added)

The statute Yahweh is referring to is likely the one mentioned in Exodus 22:29-30, which says:

"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me." (emphasis added)

Furthermore, need we be reminded that human sacrifice is the very foundation of Christianity? As Dr. Avalos notes:

Jesus Christ is viewed as the only-begotten son of God, who must be sacrificed to redeem the world because of "love" (John 3:16). Christ's sacrifice is premised on the sort of blood-magic inherited from the ancient Near East. This blood-magic is evident in Hebrews 9:22: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." Christian apologists might claim that their god has authority to order sacrifice, but this claim is no more verifiable than that of any other religion that practices human sacrifice. [Ibid.]

Laura also mentions several church fathers who condemned Jephthah's actions, but we can see that God evidently did not. Laura insists that this case, like others, is actually a case of "God's great mercy in dealing with flawed humanity."
That's right. It's the humans' fault every time. God forbid (pardon the expression) that Yahweh should ever be blamed for anything bad done in the Bible. This only further confirms my earlier assumption that both Kyle and Laura illogically believe (just like the earliest Christians) that God can do no wrong because, well, he's God. "Your argument is invalid" evidently existed thousands of years ago, and may have been invented by Christianity.



Based on everything we've seen, the truth is inescapable: Yahweh does indeed endorse human sacrifice in the Bible.

Slavery

We now come to another disgusting aspect of the Bible that in fact had a profound impact on future history: slavery. Laura explains to us that slavery in the Old Testament was technically more like indentured servitude, due to the fact that slaves only worked for seven years in order to pay off a debt. She also claims that this was "not predicated on race or the idea that some people are inherently inferior." As we shall see, both of these assertions are false and misleading.

Laura's insistence that "Christianity sees every human being as equal in the eyes of God" is simply absurd. The New Testament flatly denies equal rights to women (see: 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15). Though it appears that Paul declares equality for all in Galations, this is not really what he is saying at all. The passage in question reads:

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." -Galations 3:27-29

What Paul is basically telling us here is that only those who have been "baptized into Christ" are seen as equal in the eyes of God. In other words, only those who have accepted Christ as their God are seen equally. And even in this case, Paul is not discussing equality in the sense that people are given equal legal rights, but rather equality in the sense that they all share the same "promise" in the afterlife. He was not asserting a political concept, but rather a very prejudicial theology, where only those who have been "baptized into Christ" are equals.

Update 6/19/2012: After questioning Laura about this issue and presenting her with the information regarding Galations 3:27-29, she responded with:

And yet strangely it is debated. Now, what was all that about "looking at things narrowly and falsely in order to get a justification for a predetermined thought or prejudice" again?

Furthermore, need we be reminded of God's discrimination of homosexuals in Lev. 18:22? Modern medical science and psychology studies have demonstrated quite decisively that homosexuality is inherent in nature, including human nature. Did God not know this? If so, it merely supports the very obvious truth that the Bible was written by uninformed humans, not by God or anyone divinely inspired by him. However, if God did know this, then he is clearly exhibiting discrimination against an inborn nature of some humans. How is this any different than discrimination against someone due to the color of their skin? The New Testament supports this as well. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:9-10:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (emphasis added)

Who the "effeminate" is, is unclear, but "abusers of themselves with mankind" likely refers to homosexuals, and indeed other translations do in fact say "homosexuals" and "men who practice homosexuality." The idea that "Christianity sees every human being as equal in the eyes of God" is groundless.

As for slavery itself, this was done abundantly throughout the Bible and was rarely, if ever, seen as wrong. We have already established that the Bible is quite fine with the owning of sex slaves. But even that aside, the Mosaic law of slaves only working for seven years is not quite as grand as Laura believes. We read in Deut. 15:4 and 11 that:

[4] "Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it..." [11] "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."

As we can see, there is nothing here about the concept of slavery ending. Verse 11 clearly states that "the poor shall never cease out of the land." So even though Hebrew slaves were to be set free after seven years, there is nothing in these passages about preventing new slaves from being taken into servitude. We should also keep in mind that this rule appears to only apply to Hebrew slaves. Moreover, these laws are apparently no longer applicable once we reach the New Testament, as Christ is viewed as "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." (Ephesians 2:15). Furthermore, the concept of owning slaves permanently is indeed found in the Bible. Lev. 25:44-46 reads:

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." (emphasis added)

Laura argues that "the Mosaic law regarding the treatment of slaves was put there to ensure they were treated with human dignity." However, she does not proceed to actually tell us what these laws required. Let us read what these laws do in fact say.

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." -Exodus 21:20-21 (emphasis added)

So what this passage actually says is that you can beat a slave nearly to death, and the master is not punished at all. And we see that the reason given is that the slave is seen as his "money." Therefore, the slave is clearly seen as property, not a human being. And this idea--that a master has control over his "money," regardless of the negative treatment to the workers--is even endorsed by Jesus. In Jesus' parable of the vineyard workers in Matthew 20:1-16, when workers complain that those who have worked an entire day are paid the same amount as those who have only worked part of the day, the master replies "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" This is obviously a continuation of Exodus 21:21.

We find in Isaiah 14:1-2 that God evidently envisions a future with more slavery, not less. The passage in question reads:

"For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors." (emphasis added)

The example Laura gives us of the Bible condemning slavery is 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Though this passage does refer to "menstealers" (other translations do say "slave traders"), it does not actually say slavery is wrong. What it apparently says is that taking another's slave is wrong. After all, Commandment 8 forbids stealing, and since we have already established that a slave is seen as "money" (property), the taking of a slave is seen as simply taking someone else's property. So this passage would seem to condemn stealing, rather than slavery.

If we continue further into the New Testament, we see that slavery actually continues. In 1 Peter 2:18-20, we read:

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God."

A similar statement is also made in Ephesians 6:5. Note that the word "froward" essentially means "difficult to deal with" (other translations use words such as "harsh," "cruel," "unjust," etc.). So we are told to respect our masters whether they are being reasonable or unreasonable. We also see in the NT Paul's endorsement of slavery, whereby in Philemon he returns a runaway slave to his master. Paul, who was out constantly preaching the supposed word of Christ, does not reprimand Philemon for owning a slave.

Furthermore, we see that slavery is not included as one of the listed sins in the previously mentioned 1 Cor. 6:9-10. As we saw, that list consisted of "fornicators," "idolaters," "adulterers," "effeminate," "abusers of themselves with mankind," "thieves," "covetous," "drunkards," "revilers," and "extortioners." So apparently Paul saw cheating on your partner and being drunk as being worse crimes than owning slaves.

Laura proceeds to cite two Christian activists who fought against slavery as evidence that "Christianity first introduced the concept into western civilization that slavery is wrong." She cites William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglass as examples. While these men undoubtedly contributed enormously to the abolishment of slavery, the idea that it was necessarily due to there "Christianity" is not well supported. As we have seen, the Bible clearly endorses slavery, so regardless of whether or not these men believed they were acting in accordance with the teachings of the Bible, they were in reality going against what the Bible actually preaches. The fact that two Christians contributed to the abolishment of slavery is not the same thing as Christianity contributing to this. As Dr. Richard Carrier has demonstrated, the idea that all peoples of all faiths should share the same legal rights is a pagan concept, not a Christian one. (See the paragraph on "Slavery" in Dr. Carrier's essay On Musonius Rufus. See also his article Christianity Was Not Responsible for American Democracy) The reality is that it was only after the secularization of the west did people begin to obtain equal legal rights. Had either Wilberforce or Douglass followed the true teachings of the Bible, especially Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Peter 2:18, we might still have slavery today. The fact of the matter is that God never said a word against the concept of slavery, which makes absolutely no sense if he exists.

Innocent Mistakes

After her discussion of slavery, Laura proceeds to tackle the story found in 2 Samuel 6:1-10, whereby the character of Uzzah reaches out to steady the Ark of the Covenant after the oxen stumble, and as a result he is killed by God. Laura claims that:

 "TheThinkingAtheists say that Uzzah just made an innocent mistake and then God struck him down. They are presenting this story in a certain light in order to make God seem like a whimsical unjust tyrant, who strikes people down for the most innocent actions."

Nobody of course has to portray God in this way, as the Bible itself does a fine job of that already. God smiting people for things that any sensible person would see are not that big of a deal occurs quite often in the Bible, contrary to what Laura believes.

The excuse Laura makes for God in this case is extremely weak. She argues that because the Ark was the most holy object on Earth, and there were strict rules about not touching it, God was justified in executing Uzzah. In order to demonstrate the utter absurdity of this argument, let me present you with this scenario:

You are an eighth grade student on a class field trip to an art museum. You and the class pass through a large room full of amazing artwork. There is security all around to make sure the art is kept safe. At one point, you and the class pass by a large vase that is valued at $100,000. The tour guide tells you how valuable and rare the vase is, and tells everyone that touching it is absolutely forbidden. The class then starts to leave, and while doing so one of your classmates brushes past the table the vase is sitting on. He nudges it just enough to knock the vase off balance and it begins to topple over. So through natural reflex, you hastily reach out and stop the vase from falling just in time. The security guard present sees the whole thing; the fact that your classmate knocked the vase over and that you reached out to save it. The security guard then takes you by the arm and says you must leave the museum, and that your parents are going to have to pay a hefty fine for touching the vase, which no harm came to and made it safely back on the table.

Does the outcome of this scenario sound reasonable to you? Was the student's punishment justifiable? Do you think the security guard was right to punish him? I hope your answer was "no" for all three of these questions. If we find this story to be nonsense, then we must also see the story of Uzzah to be nonsense as well. Uzzah was simply acting on natural reflex to steady the Ark for he feared it would fall. God killing him was a pretty odd way of saying "thanks for not letting it fall over." With Gods like that, who needs devils? What would God have done if he had just let it fall? According to Laura, Uzzah did no favors for God, but instead "rebel[led] against God." She also insists that this incident "tells us about God's great holiness," but all I see this as is an example of God's great selfishness. We see God acting like nothing more than selfish jerk who can't stand to have anyone touch his stuff no matter what. One can almost here God crying like a spoiled teenager "THAT'S MINE! DON'T TOUCH IT!" Defending God on this is ridiculous, but must be done in order to maintain the delusion that God is perfectly good.

Animal abuse

Laura's next attempt at defending God's actions has her discussing God's mistreatment of animals. The incident cited in MWG, found in Joshua 11:6, has Joshua hamstringing the enemies' horses (called "houghing" in the Bible). Laura first gives us examples in the Bible of God speaking kindly of animals as evidence that God does not condone animal abuse. She cites Ecc. 3:19, Genesis 9:5-17,  Hosea 2:18, and Joel 1:20 as examples of this. However, none of these passages actually seem to support her argument.

Ecc. 3:19 simply tells us that the fate of animals will be the fate of man as well. Basically, God tells us that everything dies, and no living thing is immune to this. Genesis 9:5 is simply the story of Noah's selection of animals that will be saved from the flood. Why God needed to kill all but two of every animal is odd, seeing as they had done nothing wrong. Hosea 2:18 simply has God including these new animals in his covenant. Again, why he had to kill any animals is puzzling. And Joel 1:20 describes how animals cried out in pain and sadness, and God hears them but does nothing to help them. These passages don't really tell us that God cares about the animals per se, but rather he cares about them being dominated by the humans of the Earth. As we shall, this is evidently what God had in mind.

Laura, after admitting that God did in fact order Joshua to hamstring the horses, then claims that "nowhere in the Bible does God tell human beings to abuse animals." Uhhh... What!? What does she back this up with? The fact that other Christians outside the Bible have said animal abuse is wrong! Again... What!? How does the fact that other Christians speaking kindly of animals support what God does in the Bible? Like her arguments concerning slavery, Laura seems to think that Christians supporting a certain position is the same thing as Christianity supporting a position. Certain Christians supporting a view is just not the same thing as God or the Bible supporting a certain view.

She goes on to cite Genesis 1:28, which states:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

From this, she claims "In this case the word 'dominion' means protecting, loving, and caring for." But it actually does NOT mean this at all. As John Loftus points out regarding this passage:

The world was created for human beings. It was a "good" world, for us. And God tells us what we are to do with the rest of creation. We are to subdue it and have dominion over it, something reiterated in Genesis 9:1-3 and Psalm 8. When we look at the Hebrew words for "subdue" and "dominion" we see just what God wanted from us. The Hebrew word for subdue is כָּבַשׁ and it's a very harsh word which literally means "to trample on." According to an authoritative Lexicon it means to "tread down, beat or make a path, subdue; 1. bring into bondage, 2. (late) subdue, force." [Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon]. We see this word used in Zechariah 9:15 of Israel trampling on the weapons of her enemies. In Jeremiah 34:11 it's used of slave owners taking back released slaves and subduing them again. The word "subjugate" would be an appropriate word for what this word means, and doing this demanded force. The same word is used by king Ahasuerus who was angered at what he considered Haman’s attempted sexual assault ("subduing") of Queen Esther, in Esther 7:8. It's also the derivative word for the word "footstool." What God said was for us to make the rest of creation a footstool for our own purposes. 

The word "dominion" doesn’t fare any better. It has a similar meaning to the word "subdue" except that it also includes the idea of chastisement. This is no benign way to rule over nature. It meant to "master" over someone, especially when he or she refused to be subdued. It's used of King Solomon’s overseers who forced his laborers to build the Temple in I Kings 9:23. It’s used in Isaiah 14:2 describing the time when the Israelites defeated her oppressors and subdued them. Either one of these words was enough to convey the harshness of this man-given lordship over the earth, but because both words are used together, they are meant to confer upon mankind a dictatorial and domineering rule over nature. [Quoted from: The Bible and the Treatment of Animals, by John W. Loftus; (John Loftus's entire article is highly recommended reading for this issue)]

All this passage tells us is that we are allowed to dominate the animals and are allowed to do with them as we wish. After all, what could "dominion over the fish of the sea" mean other than we're allowed to eat the fish? God is in fact horrible to animals, and if he actually exists, he continues to be horrible to this day. [See: The Darwinian Problem of Evil, by John W. Loftus; published in The Christian Delusion, ed. by John W. Loftus, pg. 237]

We then move on to the second video, in which Kyle attempts to defend God's actions for the remainder of their response. Kyle's rational for God ordering the horses to be hamstringed is that horses were essentially seen as weapons of war, and hamstringing them was the only alternative to prevent the enemies of Israel from obtaining them. Kyle says "getting the Israelites to trust God was more important than the lives of those horses." The fact that Kyle can even say such a thing with a straight face is quite sickening to me. I can certainly come up with a better alternative; how about just killing the horses? Never mind the fact that there is no reason why God has to allow these wars to occur in the first place. But why must they be hamstringed? Why must they suffer, when they will likely have to be killed anyway? If anything, this demonstrates to us that God does not see animals as real living things at all, but just tools for humans to do what we please with them. Like slaves, animals are seen as our property in the eyes of God, and nothing more.

Baby Killing, Kidnapping, and Death

I include these three issues together because Kyle seems to address them essentially together as well. His arguments against each one are all equally as weak. TTA cites two incidents of baby killing in MWG: the massacre of all those in the city of Jericho in Joshua 6:21-27 and the killing of the Amalikites in 1 Samuel 15:3. Kyle's response to the incident in Joshua is that no babies were likely at Jericho, since the city was more of a fortress, and therefore would likely have only contained soldiers. However, let's keep in mind that Jericho was a city that contained upwards of 20,000 people. Are we really supposed to believe that out of all those 20,000 people, not a single baby was present?

Interestingly, Kyle conveniently ignores the second passage cited by TTA, in which God specifically says to murder babies. That passage reads:

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." -1 Samuel 15:3 (emphasis added)

But of course there are other places in which God not only is responsible for the death of babies, but even babies who have not yet left their mothers' wombs. For example, Hosea 13:16 states:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (emphasis added)

In other words, infants are killed, and any women who are pregnant shall be ripped up and killed as well. Furthermore, we read in 2 Kings 15:16 that God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be "ripped open." Also, in Hosea 9:11-16, Hosea begs God to make it so that all the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God obliges, and causes all the women of Ephraim to have miscarriages. Christians who are against abortion would do well to keep this passage in mind. It appears that God is quite fine with killing babies. Christians may come up with excuses for why God was justified in doing these things, but it simply supports my earlier assertion that Christians make excuses only for God that they would never do for anyone else.

Kyle then discusses the massive amount death God causes throughout the Bible, but like so many other apologists he insists that God has excuses for everything he does. Kyle compares God's actions to that of police officers and military personnel, and "we do not question" these people when they "make a life or death decision." First of all, we do question these people if we feel there is probable cause. A cop may act unjustly and will have to suffer the consequences. The same goes for anyone in the army. The fact that a person is cop or a soldier does not make them immune to criticism. But in Kyle and Laura's world, God's actions cannot be questioned, only defended. I cannot emphasis this enough: Christians play favorites with their God. They have deluded themselves into believing their God is perfect, and that only imperfect humans can make bad decisions. Kyle also compares God's actions to that of a parent simply looking out for his children. But again, parents are not immune to criticism either. The fifth Commandment may say to "Honour thy father and thy mother," but we must always keep in mind that honour and respect are things you earn. If my parents were half as horrific as Yahweh, I would feel absolutely no obligation to honour or respect them in any way. The same goes for any cop or military personnel.

I should also mention that one reason we do, for the most part, respect our parents, the police, and military personnel, is also because we know they actually exist. We can acknowledge their presence and learn to better understand why they do what they do. In most cases when responsible parents, cops, and military personnel do things we may at first object to, they will usually give us a valid explanation for why they did it. We may not like their answers sometimes, or sometimes their answers may genuinely be bad, but at least they gave us something. In the case of God, we have absolutely no proof of his existence, and if does exist, he is obviously not speaking to us in any kind of direct way. If God exists, there is absolutely no valid reason for this silence. Instead, Christians have to speak up for God and invent any number ad hoc excuses for why he allows and supposedly causes terrible things to happen in the world.

Kyle's answer is typical amongst apologists: free will. Two words Christians are so fond of repeating over and over again. Never mind the fact that God directly intervened numerous times in the Bible. Why was God so willing to help the Jews escape Egypt and find the land of milk and honey, but was curiously absent when Hitler tried to eradicate virtually all of them? Where was God for any number of the terrible things that served no benefit when they first happened, and certainly are not benefiting us now? The argument about free will is a weak one, and is really nothing more than a last resort for Christians who otherwise have no strong defense for God's actions and inaction.



Kyle's trust in God appears to be only strengthened by the supposed protection God gives us. But again, the problem is that we don't know if he is actually protecting us. Kyle claims that he would "much rather these decisions be made by a higher power such as God, rather than humans of so much mental limitation." And I would much rather put my trust in someone that I actually knew for a fact existed. People are flawed. That much is obvious. But we know they at least exist, and therefore can even be given the chance to be trusted in the first place. Why the hell would I trust someone who has never given me, or anyone else for that matter, proof that he exists in the first place? It's like a pair of irresponsible parents leaving their child home alone for the evening, insisting that they've hired a babysitter to watch him all the way across the street. You have absolutely no evidence the babysitter exists. You've never seen him or her. He or she has never spoken to you over the phone. All you have to go on is your parents' word, or perhaps at most your parents might show you a brochure saying what a great babysitter he or she is, but it obviously could be fake and full of lies. We know what the likely case is here. In all likelihood there really was no babysitter. They just wanted an evening out and didn't want to spend money on a sitter. We know this is usually not how parents treat their children when they go out. The have the sitter actually come over, and he or she speaks to you and directly interacts with you. That is the beginning of the trust building. Because God has not done even that, I have absolutely no reason to trust that he is watching over me or anyone else for that matter. We are not "grown up children," as Kyle believes. And if we were, God is one of the most irresponsible parents that has ever existed.

Kyle then decides to address the issue of kidnapping discussed in TTA's video. The passage in question is in Num. 31, where God rewards stolen plunder to the Israelites, including 32,000 virgin women. The next illogical argument Kyle gives us is that this was not a case of kidnapping per se, but rather "the military act of protecting innocent bystanders by making them prisoners of war." Oh really? Let's read some of the passages in this chapter and see how these innocent bystanders were "protected."

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." -Num. 31:15-18 (emphasis added)

We previously addressed this passage, and we established it is one of several passages where the taking of sex slaves occurs. This passage tells us that every male child and every woman who has had sex are put to death, but all the virgin women (and note that it says here "women children." ugh) are to be kept alive. The Israelites are told they can keep them alive for themselves. The meaning here is obvious. Can anyone honestly read this passage and think it is in anyway humane? Furthermore, the kidnapping and forcing into slavery occurs to children in 1 Kings 9:21. Again, it is obvious that God sees certain humans as little more than semi-conscious property. God's followers obviously saw the taking of other humans as essentially the same as taking property and animals.

Closing Statements

Having failed to provide any valid arguments defending God's actions, Kyle then provides further confirmation for my view that Christians illogically refuse to accept God's evil: "God makes the rules." Whether Kyle or Laura want to accept it or not, they (and probably most Christians) do NOT follow many of God's rules. Were we to follow all of God's "rules," or follow his example and act like him, we would ultimately have to:

-Solve our problems with mass murder (Genesis 7:4, 17-23)

-Murder anyone who picks up a stick on a Saturday (Numbers 15:32-36)

-Commit genocide when he wants you to (Deuteronomy 2:31-34, Deuteronomy 3:1-6, Deuteronomy 7:1-3, Joshua 10:40, Joshua 11:19-20, 1 Samuel 15:2-3)

-Buy and keep slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46)

-Make sex slaves of prisoners of war (Deuteronomy 21:10-12, Numbers 31:15-18)

-Kill people who have sex (Deuteronomy 22:13-30, Deuteronomy 22:23-30)

-Have gay men executed (Leviticus 20:13)

-Abolish religious freedom with murder and terrorism (Deuteronomy 12:1-13:16)

-Suppress free speech with murder (Leviticus 24:11-16)

-Engage in human sacrifice when you promise him to (Judges 11:29-40)

-Murder tens of thousands of innocent people just because one guy did what God actually inspired him to do (2 Samuel 24:1-17)

-Kill pacifists (1 Kings 20:35-36)

-Hideously maul dozens of children merely for being silly (2 Kings 2:23-24)

-Smash babies against rocks (Psalms 137:8-9)

-Make deals with the Devil and allow hideous evils to befall the innocent just to win a bet (Job 1:8-2:10)

-Be jealous, angry, and vengeful (Nahum 1:2-8)

-Bake your meals with human shit (Ezekiel 4:12-15)

(See: The Will of God, by Dr. Richard Carrier)

Of course, many Christians have unfortunately followed many of the above rules, and as a result we have had centuries of horrible crimes committed and likely millions of lives lost. I can already here the objections from other apologists: "But those people didn't follow the real teachings of Jesus or the Bible!" As I have demonstrated, this is simply untrue. As scholar Earl Doherty appropriately summarizes:

Jesus, if he existed, may have said to love one another, or one's enemies—though if he did, he was echoing those who had said it before him. But he was also reputed to have advocated compelling the non-believer to conversion, to have condemned to Hell those communities and individuals who failed to heed his message, to have urged his followers to take up the sword, and to hate one's father and mother (the repudiation of social commitments) in the interests of furthering the beliefs and goals of the sect. According to the Gospel of John, he declared the Jewish authorities to be sons of Satan. (If he also said on the cross, "Father, forgive them"—as recorded only in Luke—his words failed to provide any inspiration for centuries of Christians to follow his example.) Christians throughout history have done as much evil as good by following some of the "teachings of Jesus," and very few of them can simply be dismissed as charlatans and lunatics. Thus [the] claim that Christians who have committed atrocities are going "contrary" to the teachings of Jesus is a sham, and can only be supported by a very selective choice of the words found in Jesus' mouth in the Gospels.

Kyle then briefly notes that the "attitude of hostility" of TTA's video was "hardly necessary." Welcome to the internet Kyle. You're bound to find quite a bit of that. But one of the points of TTA's video was that it is hardly necessary for God to commit so many pointless atrocities. Basically, if God didn't act like a horrific monster, he wouldn't be portrayed that way in the first place.

Kyle also seems to have problems with how the Bible verses were displayed in TTA's video. According to him, TTA did not actually quote scripture, but merely "paraphrased scripture in a way that did not reflect the meaning in the text that is uncovered upon adequate scrutiny." The verses in the Bible are quite long, and obviously need paraphrasing when time is limited. Kyle is of course using the argument anticipated in the video, that the passages were taken out of context. Read the quotes yourself and see if TTA misrepresented them.

(Click here to enlarge. Read the quotes on death here.)



Kyle's assertion that the passages were taken out of context is only fueled by his determination to believe that there is an excuse for every terrible thing God has ever done.

The final issue Kyle has with the video is in fact the title; "Morality Without God." The end of TTA's video claims that "Morality is a choice, not a church." From this, Kyle asks:

"What choice exists apart from ones made through examining the social knowledge that has been saturated with religious understandings for centuries?"

Answer: quite a few choices actually. First and foremost, the moral teachings we use today, even if they were solely due to religion, were certainly not solely due to Christianity. For example, most of the Ten Commandments can be found in earlier mythologies. The 42 Negative Confessions found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (written hundreds of years prior to the Ten Commandments) contain most of the Ten Commandments, including "thou shall not steal" ("Have you stolen?"), "thou shall not kill" ("Have you slain another?"), and "thou shall not bear false witness" ("Have you spoken lies?"). It is possible that these texts even influenced the Ten Commandments.

Secondly, it is obvious that "religious understandings" are not solely responsible for our moral guidelines today, for if they were, we would be carrying out any number of the horrible crimes we have previously discussed.



Note that in the above video at min. 2:34, Richard Dawkins states:

"Nobody in our days actually defends many of the moral injunctions that you'll find in either the Bible or the Koran. I mean, they're horrible, many of them. Disgusting. And when you challenge religious people, they say 'Well of course we don't do that anymore. We don't stone people to death, and you're allowed to break the Sabbath if you want to, and that sort of thing.' But, having admitted that, they've then admitted that actually they're getting their morality from somewhere other than religion. They're getting it from a moral consensus which is secular, which develops through time... What I've called in The God Delusion the 'Changing Moral Zeitgeist.'"

Today, we are able to look in a Bible and spot the good teachings from the bad. Through logical assessments made over the last few thousand years, we have allowed ourselves to discover morality without the need for religion. Science can tell us how to be moral, and it does a much better job than religion. That is the whole point of TTA's video. Morality is a choice because we figured it out on our own, without the need for a divine entity in the sky. If our morals rested solely on religious teachings, I doubt there would be nearly as many people in the world as there is today. Though Christians like Kyle and Laura do appear ready to defend God's actions at any time, those who follow logic and common sense can see that God is nothing more than a cruel, selfish, disgusting, and most of all, evil being. The message of TTA's video stands: morality is a choice, not a church.


And so we come to the end of Kyle and Laura's video response. The last point Kyle wishes to make is that in assessing the world around us, we should start from a place of humility, for we "do not know everything," and that:

"To try to justify what we believe based on what we see is not as wise as striving to seek truth. To whatever depth it takes for reality to be revealed."

And this of course goes against what the scientific method has taught us.The scientific method teaches us that we decide what is and isn't reality based on careful research and studies. Repeatable, verifiable, testable studies, based on what we can see and determine is real. The scientific method is the best tool ever devised for seeking the truth, because it's free of bias and agenda. Of course we do not know everything, and everything should be questioned. But Kyle and Laura seem to have abandoned this principal in seeking to find justification for the atrocious behavior of Yahweh. It is my hope that both Laura and Kyle will scrutinize the God of the Bible just as thoroughly as they have scrutinized TTA's video. To do otherwise shows a profound willful ignorance on their part, in which case any discussion on the matter is over. The Bible tells us that Jesus is "the way," "the truth," and "the life." (John 14:6) But this simply isn't true. The fact is that science is the way, the truth, and the life, because science literally shows us the way, it gives us the truth, and it improves our lives. Religion has hardly done any of this.

The last thing Kyle tells us in regards to knowing the truth is that we must seek it, but we should not seek "a justification of assumptions." Hardly anything in their video has demonstrated to me that they have attempted anything other than just that. Recall Laura's words from before, that "It seems that it makes more sense to search for the truth rather than looking at things narrowly and falsely in order to get a justification for a predetermined thought or prejudice that one may have." This is merely an assertion that TTA and other atheists are biased in their opposition to God and religion. The question of God's morality is in fact secondary to my questions about God as a whole. As I have made clear several times already, there is no credible evidence at all that God exists, and plenty of evidence that shows he does not exist. So my thoughts about the God portrayed in the Bible are not narrowed to what I want to believe about him, as I have no reason to think he exists in the first place. In other words, I don't need God to be evil. But Christians do need him to be good. The scriptural stories Laura and Kyle have been taught are likely distortions of what really occurs in the Bible. And what we see occur in the Bible is a world of death, destruction, dehumanization, torture, and outright chaos.

Deliberate ignorance is dangerous, and we must not let it corrupt this world that we have tried so hard to make a good and happy place to live in.

For more on the subject of morality and its relation to religion, the following books are recommended:

Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism
Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe
Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life