The questioner continued by stating,
evilbible.com had lots of valid points. Some are invalid as you pointed out. But remember it is a work of a single individual. You ignored the valid points in the website, and accused the author of ignoring things from the bible. Very typical behavior expected from a theist.
So evilbible.com had lots of valid points and of the “lots” not one single one is referenced. Yet, they also have some invalid ones as I pointed out. Fair enough.
That it is the “work of a single individual” is not accurate, it may have one administrator but not one author. For example, my parsed essay Atheism, EvilBible.com, “Theists Suck” and Christians are Hypocrites responds to an evilbible.com page that was not authored by the administrator. But be that as it may; the main point is the claim that I “ignored the valid points in the website, and accused the author of ignoring things from the bible.” I am not certain that this is “Very typical behavior expected from a theist” but alas. At the beginning of the essay on Christians are Hypocrites I stated,
If she wants to charge Christians with hypocrisy we could merely say, “Right you are, shame on us”
Within that parsed essay I actually gave quite a bit of props to evilbile.com’s points about Christian hypocrisy (is “props” still a hip common parlance thing?). But no, overall I did not find much validity at evilbible.com and the questioner did not provide any of the “lots” of examples. Moreover, the claim that I “ignored the valid points in the website, and accused the author of ignoring things from the bible” is fallacious for, at least, four reasons: 1) I did, in fact, admit to some valid points (as I just stated above).
2) I did not simply ignore the further valid points but simply did not find many.
3) I never claimed to have responded to the entire text of the entire evilbible.com website: in fact in my comment at the Q&A website I stated “Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.”
4) The correlation between my supposed ignoring of valid points and my valid accusation that evilbible.com “ignoring things from the bible” is faulty: this is because I was much more specific than that in stating that the evilbible.com page that deals with rape,
…neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text.
In any case, perhaps I am not a typical theist.
The questioner continued by stating,
why [sic] should we worship god if he exists? is he that vain?
Why should we worship God? Why not?
Is He that vain? No.
If God is then God is the only appropriate being to worship. We humans also have a propensity towards worship: we have worshipped everything from nature to other human beings. These two are, in fact, both of atheism’s preferred objects of worship in the form of replacing awe in God with awe in nature in the form of Neo-Pagan-Atheism and in the form of self-worship. Professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argued that the atheist Joseph Stalin was, in reality, a theist since he believed in a god who told him what was right and wrong and that god was Stalin. The problem with the self-made man is that he worships his creator. As the philosopher Bob Dylan stated it,
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeedYou’re gonna have to serve somebody,It may be the devil or it may be the LordBut you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
But is God that vain? There is no reason to equate vanity with the appropriate object of our worship pointing out that He is the appropriate object of our worship (this issue was discussed further in the post James Randi – the Amazing Atheist, part 2 of 2).
The questioner continued by stating,
isnt [sic] it enough if i [sic] just didnt [sic] cause harm to anyone. isnt [sic] just behaving as a moral citizen enough. but [sic] no, the bible and christians [sic] claim not believing in ‘their ‘God as [sic] sin. What a bigoted ***** ** *** ****. [expletives removed]
This question represents the very premise upon which man-made religion is based: works based salvation. What I did, what I do, I make the rules, I referee the game, I declare myself the winner—and God better agree because I have made myself God’s god. Let us parse the questions:
isnt it enough if i just didnt cause harm to anyone.
The questioner did not define “harm” and so responding is very difficult. Perhaps it is not harm to stick it to those typical theists. Perhaps harm is only physical but not psychological. Perhaps…, perhaps…, who knows? I have found that such people define harm as “Nothing that I have ever done.” Whatever the definition of “harm” is the questioner claim to have caused no harm and to have caused no harm to anyone—this is certainly impressive. It actually impresses upon me that their definition of “harm” is very, very loose and very, very allowing of excuses. In fact, what if I state that the questioner has harmed me by besmirching me and my God. There you have it; they are now guilty of harm causing.
But granting that they have actually lived an entire lifetime of causing no harm to anyone (and apparently expects to continue doing so) why is this not enough? We will come to that.
isnt just behaving as a moral citizen enough.
The questioner did not define “moral” and so responding is very difficult. Perhaps it is moral to stick it to those typical theists. Perhaps morality only relates to physical acts but not to the psychology, the thoughts, behind the acts (see My Evil Thoughts). Perhaps…, perhaps…, who knows? I have found that such people define moral as “Whatever I do.” Whatever the definition of “moral” is the questioner claim to be moral—period, this is certainly impressive. It actually impresses upon me that their definition of “moral” is very, very loose and very, very allowing of excuses. In fact, what if I state that the questioner is immoral because they besmirched me and my God. There you have it, they are now immoral.
But granting that they actually are moral (and apparently expects to continue being so) why is this not enough? We will come to that.
but no, the bible and christians claim not believing in ‘their ‘God as sin.
As I noted above this is fallacious since the issue is sin itself and the rejection of salvation. In fact, the Bible is little impressed by theism in general, or even monotheism in particular, as it states,
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! (James 2:19).
My un-authorized paraphrase is “You believe in God? You are a monotheist? Mazel tov! That’s just super! You share the same theology as demons.” This is because the discussion is the question of “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?…faith without works is dead?”—you believe, good, now act like it.
What a bigoted…
The questioner did not define “bigoted” and so responding is very difficult…you get the idea. Let us imagine that it is true that it is no enough to not cause “harm” and not enough to be “moral” and that it is a sin to not believe in God—if it is true it is not bigoted but a mere fact. Facts are, by definition, restrictive or bigoted/intolerant, if you will. If it is a fact that 2+2=4 then it is bigoted/intolerant that 2+2=5 is wrong but it is nonetheless true that 2+2=4 and false that 2+2=5.
But why is this not enough? Let us begin by stating that as we saw from James; good works are very important for at least two reasons: 1) people need good works done to and for them 2) good works go some way towards demonstrate that you are not merely claiming to be something that you are not: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22), “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16), etc.
Yet, while very many atheists argue for a works based model of salvation we should thank God that such is not His higher ways. Imagine getting to the judgment very pleased with your self-professed morality and lack of causing harm. Yet, next to you is Mother Theresa. How do you add up now? How does Mother Theresa add up to Jesus? Imagine God stating, “Oh boy; you are just five helping little old ladies crossing the street short of salvation—sorry, bye!” No indeed, God has not established a good works contest for salvation. Note that this man-made soteriology one considers the good and disregards the bad and the ugly (to employ a little Hollywood lingo). What about the person who only near the date of their death comes to their senses, repents and realizes that they have lived a wretched life? Are they condemned because they only recently began to store up for themselves good works? Why do good things happened to bad people?
No indeed, God’s salvation is by grace,
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.
But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work (Romans 11:6).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.