Is God A Moral Monster?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']No true Christian is a Christian out of fear of God or of what may happen if they don't obey him. I chose to be a Christian firstly because my reason makes me see him with certitude through creation, but I also see how he did it through science. Evolution etc. Secondly I have developed a relationship with Jesus which is more real to me than my human relationships. In my younger life I got angry with God, but in all fairness if I tried to be an atheist it would have been a lie. The ancient term 'God Fearing' is a mistranslation. God does not need to be feared, we only need to fear our choices ourselves! If you make a car and I injure myself in it, is that your fault?[/quote]Most of this response is personal opinion that flies in the face of common practices and beliefs within Christianity. It also does very little to address the topic, which is the god of the bible.

Yes, if I made a car that was unsafe and you were injured by it, I would be responsible.

"Reason" letting you see "god" through "creation" is a highly subjective and argumentative topic. It is likewise off topic.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']I'm not ignoring the alleged killings. You are viewing God like a human who kills for selfish motives and leaves the victim to rot or to their faith. God is different. God made man and he made him mortal, therefore God is responsible for everyone's death. But his objective is quite the opposite to a cold human killer. God gave man free choice to chose his love or not. Man chose a wrong path, so God made man mortal for reasons that by his death and resurrection he may be made fit for God's kingdom.[/quote]Alleged, are you denying it? Because that doesn't address the god of the bible. Later you write that god killed to achieve his objective, that does qualify as selfish to me. Communists also killed millions for their objectives that was supposedly for the people.

You keep insisting that it is a free choice, I don't see anything free about it.

This supposed "god" being directly and indirectly responsible for human death/torture is different. Death is a natural process, but hopefully we can all admit that killing is wrong.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']No real Christian believes in coercion to make people believe. Free choice is always the catch phrase. But in practice humans tend to give up as soon as the going gets tough. A person who contracts leprosy then gets cast away on an island by society where no one cares, becomes despondent and feels abandoned by both man and God. But when a healthy man comes to live with them and care about them knowing that it will result in his own death people learn from this person the true nature of God. IMO suffering and death is collateral damage. If God could achieve his objective without it then I feel he would choose that option. The part that you have missed is you can see the coldness in this life but not the warmth of the next.[/quote]Then reading about the history of Christianity or of the Bible might make one conclude almost no one is really a believer. Especially Jesus, "[color=#ff0000]But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.[/color]" ([url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_luke19.htm"]Luke 19:27[/url]) Included is an examination of this verse in more detail by Christians. Also this verse was used by Christians during the execution of witches and notorious heretics,[i] which I understand it was not uncommon for the "Blessed Sacrament" to be present for such executions[/i].[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']You need to take a look at Fr Barron's youtube video 'Is hell full or empty.' Hell is not a place where God tortures people. Hell is a state of consciousness where people go by there own choosing only to realise who and what God is and what they have rejected. If you forgot to buy your lotto ticket and your numbers came up wouldn't that be hell?[/quote]This is not Catholic theology, in Catholicism it is believed the punishments of Hell are two fold, the absence of god and the punishment for offenses. But this re-identification of hell as a choice of absence of god, is a difficult one to accept, since it implies by comparison god lets his children run out into the free way that he conveniently parked next to our playground.

It also implies you can "[i]choose[/i]" hell by not really choosing hell.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']You seem to be saying that God should reveal himself before you make your choice. But that would not be free choice. If a man marries a girl knowing she has lots of money, he may never know why he married her. For years he will question if it was her or the money and so will she and the relationship will not be the same as it would be if he had chosen her without the knowledge of the money.[/quote]So you marry a girl by reading about her in a book and rationally deciding if you can follow all her expectations of you?

That's creepy.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']Is there an indication that they did not receive any benefit?[/quote]Yes, there is no mention that they received anything but the vengeance and wrath of god.[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316497344' post='2307436']As far as the Bible is concerned I don't think I've ever read it in it's entirety. To be honest I don't even know the whys and wherefores of these killings by God, so I can't offer an explanation except to say that many stories cannot be literal, because they don't make sense eg Noah and his ark. My relationship is with Jesus. What I've read in the Bible that he supposedly quoted, mostly but not all, seems to relate to this ethereal person that I know. Elsewhere in the Bible there are many great stories and quotes that I have learned from, but I don't and will not ever understand it all. No need that I can see. If you read the Bible trying to find a reason to despise or disbelieve God then no doubt you will find it and only you can change that outlook.[/quote]I know it would be easier if this was an attack on you're god belief, but this is specifically a criticism of the bible god. Because as I mentioned on page 2, when I offered a possible rebuttal, most modern Christians do not consider these central tenants to their beliefs.

However... criticism of the bible god or any religious definition of god does not preclude the remote possibility of a god... but to claim that remote possibly to be christian or anything else seems absurd at best. It appears more likely that there is no god, the reason for my agnosticism/atheism. It also appears that religiosity can be very dangerous, the reason for my post-theism.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

lolpretending moral law exists outside of God.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316562322' post='2307813']lolpretending moral law exists outside of God.[/quote]lolpretending Christianity owns the moral law.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316562443' post='2307816']
lolpretending Christianity owns the moral law.
[/quote]
I desperately want to say touche because it would be funny, but I didn't do that. Although many people have and it is certainly an easy trap into which one may fall. So....

[img]http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/touche-touche.jpg[/img]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316560248' post='2307790']
Most of this response is personal opinion that flies in the face of common practices and beliefs within Christianity.
[/quote]
I still have difficulty with the concept of an atheist trying to separate the God that lives in you from the God of the Bible. In order to do that you would need to understand the Bible in the same way that you could understand a book of fiction. I don't think you know anywhere near enough about the Bible to do this. Scholars spend lifetimes trying. You would also need to know the God that lives in you and either you don't or are denying him. As for believers obviously we don't separate them. However I will attempt to play it your way. To conclude that the God of the Bible is a moral monster requires certain conditions of the Bible. First the Bible has to be clearly a historical, factual and most of all literal document. I for one don't believe it is. The second is that we have to assume that there has been no alteration or corruption of the contents for any reason including translations. Now I know the Bible has a rage about anyone who alters it, but this does not rule out the possibility that it has been altered or mistranslated. And we only need to look at all the alterations and corruptions performed in recent times by various other denominations to let the imagination run with the possibility that the Bible is full of other men's ideas and misconceptions. Thirdly we have to assume that every author was a a competent and clear writer. Which brings us to an important issue. We believe the Bible to be the word of God. But this too has a unique meaning. If you read something and you use that word, line, verse or testament to make some point such as is God a moral monster, then it is not the word of God. It only becomes the word of God when it is read with the objective of gleaning some answer from God. Then the Bible will speak to you as the word of God. I'm not intending to go into long discussions on alternate possible meanings of the particular texts that favours your argument, because I don't have the time nor do I think that it could be successfully done. Like all written text we can read into it what we want to see.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316562443' post='2307816']
lolpretending Christianity owns the moral law.
[/quote]
Explain the existence of morality outside of religion. Animals do fine without it. And I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral, because many are. IMO it just makes them less of an atheist!

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Just war doctrine, google vatican official, and a mini search engine will appear and type in just war doctrine. Hitler was the aggressor and he needed to be stopped as an example,now one could deny hitler existed but that would be kinda like duh, no pun intended sorry am very unwell, but more to the point i remember one instance where the israelites slaughtered a whole city without the permission of there head,in the book which contains abraham i assume,his sons + others murdered a whole city after they had conceeded to be circumsises(all the men) and men that get circumsised(unsure with boys) get a severe weakness for upto 72 hours, but in that his sons where punished as far as i'm aware by god and there leader.

God bless you, hope that helps somehow.
JC "seek and you shall find,knock and the door will be open" keep seeking the truth mr cat and you will find it and if you dare chuck in a prayer p.s. this is an okay biblical resource station the vatican official website iz best for detail,we can give you some keywords to search but not always the answer,though sometimes i presume we could

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']I still have difficulty with the concept of an atheist trying to separate the God that lives in you from the God of the Bible.[/quote]Not necessarily separate, merely focusing on the god portrayed in the bible, which I propose to be fictional. However, why is it impossible for there to be a god separate from the bible?

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']In order to do that you would need to understand the Bible in the same way that you could understand a book of fiction. I don't think you know anywhere near enough about the Bible to do this. Scholars spend lifetimes trying. You would also need to know the God that lives in you and either you don't or are denying him.[/quote]Wow... So I have to be an expert to offer criticism or to question something? That's absurd. Now if I was proposing my perspective as an expert opinion, that would be problematic, but I'm not. But if we wanted to apply your absurd standard, you are not an expert in any of this... so... [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/forum/3-debate-table/"][b]Back to Debate Table[/b][/url]?

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']As for believers obviously we don't separate them. However I will attempt to play it your way. To conclude that the God of the Bible is a moral monster requires certain conditions of the Bible.[/quote]Alright... first chance of a real discussion... the believer laying down the criteria for the god portrayed in the bible to be a monster. This is almost exciting!

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']First the Bible has to be clearly a historical, factual and most of all literal document. I for one don't believe it is.[/quote]This is criteria about the bible, not about the god portrayed in the bible... And I am fairly certain Catholics are supposed to believe "[i]biblical inerrancy[/i]"... Also merely because you don't believe in the bible doesn't exclude contextual criticism of the god portrayed by the bible.

This is going to be about side stepping the discussion isn't it? But I will try to be fair, we are trying... What's the next criteria for the god portrayed in the bible to be a moral monster according to you?

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']The second is that we have to assume that there has been no alteration or corruption of the contents for any reason including translations. Now I know the Bible has a rage about anyone who alters it, but this does not rule out the possibility that it has been altered or mistranslated. And we only need to look at all the alterations and corruptions performed in recent times by various other denominations to let the imagination run with the possibility that the Bible is full of other men's ideas and misconceptions.[/quote]Wow... again this isn't about the god portrayed in the bible... This is about the bible. Which I am increasingly getting the impression you don't believe in or at least you are extremely doubtful of. But you wrote something here that I respectfully agree with, "[i]the Bible is full of [s]other[/s] men's ideas and misconceptions[/i]". It is also for this reason I consider it chiefly a work of fiction...

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']Thirdly we have to assume that every author was a a competent and clear writer. Which brings us to an important issue. We believe the Bible to be the word of God. But this too has a unique meaning. If you read something and you use that word, line, verse or testament to make some point such as is God a moral monster, then it is not the word of God.[/quote]This is an appeal to another informal logic fallacy sometimes called the "[i]no true scotsman fallac[/i]y". Again though this doesn't address the criteria that would make the god of the bible a moral monster, but rather it addresses the validity of the bible, which isn't the topic.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']It only becomes the word of God when it is read with the objective of gleaning some answer from God. Then the Bible will speak to you as the word of God. I'm not intending to go into long discussions on alternate possible meanings of the particular texts that favours your argument, because I don't have the time nor do I think that it could be successfully done. Like all written text we can read into it what we want to see.[/quote]A continuation of the fallacy and what sounds almost like a concession... almost? I don't think you would ramble this long to concede so I'm doubting it is.

But here is the truly shocking part of this reply, you seem to admit that you see it, but you refuse to accept the premise of this discussion. By writing "[i]Like all written text we can read into it what we want to see.[/i]" You are basically saying that you can read the Bible to mean anything you want it to mean. So basically you are admitting that bias is the only way to read the Bible without accepting that god is a moral monster?


[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316670347' post='2308449']Explain the existence of morality outside of religion. Animals do fine without it. And I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral, because many are. IMO it just makes them less of an atheist![/quote]Morality will continue to exist without Christianity or the Bible, it existed even before the Bible. But you're question is how can morality exist outside of religion? This implies you believe morality comes from religion/god? I would answer that this is unverifiable and morals in a religious context are largely unfalsifiable. Also that there are plenty of things that classify as "morals" that do not have a religious background to them. Such as slavery is wrong... Almost every religion for an extended period of time condoned slavery.

With changing cultural attitudes to slavery we now consider slavery immoral, in fact the Second Vatican Council clearly for the first time in the history of Catholicism very clearly condemns it. But I suppose you will tell me that there was religious dimensions to this and perhaps while Christianity condoned slavery it didn't support it... which is the problem with sorting morality between a secular and religious context... Because I can point at the religious confederate states of america who believed "god" (Christian/Bible god) supported their cause for slavery ([i]some even argued they were created to be slaves[/i])... while the more secular united states of america who eventually fought to free the slaves also believed god (Christian/Bible god) supported their cause. So who was right?

So this brings us to what I replied to Winchester with, "[b]Ultimately it is people who decide what morality is, even if it is from a supposed 'god'. But I would also assume our sense of morality has evolved with us and is apart of our neurology.[/b]" Which is exactly what we do... it is exactly what religious people do. In fact in studies of the brain almost the exact same brain activity happens when a patient is asked to consider what is "right and wrong" regardless if they are asking their supposed "god" or themselves. So there is simply no indication that any moral comes from a religion... because even when a religious moral becomes unpopular it is no longer acceptable. Such as... execution of notorious heretics.

Which coming back to you're question... It is unverifiable because there are incoherent definitions of morality within any given religion ([i]moreover through it's history[/i]) and contradictory morals between different religions... It is also largely unfalsifiable to claim that a moral is purely religious, because that implies that some kind of "god" gave it to us, but there is no way to prove or check that. Unless I missed the hotline number in the Bible. The only people deciding and telling us what morals are... are people. That is verifiable and demonstrable.

Unless... GOD, do you want to join the discussion? The Archon, this is a good chance for you to make a joke? Happy Babies?

Which even if someone did play a joke, it's still a person... claiming to be or speaking for a god... So my statement appears to stand. [b]BUT[/b] [u]this has nothing to do with the topic[/u] and if you would like to discuss ethics and morality more in depth... we can make another topic.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

Well, the internet is not really a place of debate.

[ardillacid]

The internet is not really a place...

[MithLuin]

An actual debate would begin with an exploration of the question and defining terms and whatnot. It would not leap right into the conclusions with a complete disregard for each other's world views and lack of interest in exploring those.

So, yes, the internet is not usually a place for debate.

I think the concept of applying moral laws to God is not something that should be taken for granted. Such judgements imply authority, or at least equality. So, yes...who are we to say what God should or should not do?

After all, if I sit by my grandmother's deathbed when she dies, no one is gonna say it's 'my fault' she died. I was just...there. But if I kill her, it's murder, and my fault. [size=2](Both of my grandmothers are dead, and I was not there in either case. For the record.) [/size]

The entire concept of death is something you have to grapple with before you start deciding whether or not it's 'God's fault' when someone dies. Because unlike me, who may be present but powerless to prevent it, God (being God) has the power of life and death over all of Creation. He sustains our lives, so that if God were to stop thinking about us (to put it in human terms), we'd die instantly. So forget the wars of the Old Testament for an instant, and first deal with the fact that people die, and decide what your take on that is. Then, figure out what about disease, natural disasters, and all those other forces of nature that take people's lives. Then, you get to humans taking human life...

The Biblical approach to these questions is the litany of Job: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord."
God gave each one of us life; he has the right to take it from us if and when he chooses to. And...he does.
Thus, even if God were to strike someone dead with a lightning bolt (to borrow the popular imagery), this would not be murder.

Do you remember the story of the young man who reached out to prevent the ark of the covenant from falling while it was being transported from one place to another? He seemed to have a good intention, but only the sons of Levi were permitted to touch the ark of the covenant, so he immediately dropped dead. Viewed in the light of Job's faith, this is a perfectly natural occurance.

So, if you want to tally up the total number of people who have been 'killed by God', I think what you need to do is to determine the total number of people who have ever lived. All of us will die one day, but who appoints that day if not God?

That makes God...God. Not a monster nor a murderer. In fact...we have quite a good understanding that he loves us and wants to be in communion with us for eternity. He's written that longing directly in our hearts, minds and bodies, so that the thought of being alone (truly alone, with no human contact) is one of the most horrifying things to contemplate. Not death. Death is scary, but there are worse things than death.

Hopefully, this provides some food for thought. We can't get to the answers to specific questions until we understand some of the big picture stuff.

[MithLuin]

Coincidentally, the pope addressed some of these 'big picture' ethical and world view concerns in his address to German parliament today. To read the full text of what he said, go [url="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349569?eng=y"]here[/url]. (And yes, he references the Old Testament.) He was speaking on reason and the role of law in society.

Edited September 22, 2011 by MithLuin

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1316703795' post='2308520']
The internet is not really a place...
[/quote]
The internet is not reality...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316729574' post='2308669']
The internet is not reality...
[/quote]
lie

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
Not necessarily separate, merely focusing on the god portrayed in the bible, which I propose to be fictional. However, why is it impossible for there to be a god separate from the bible?
[/quote]
It's not impossible there are other God's money, power, self! The one I was discussing is the same as the biblical one. You appeared to be dismissing that as irrelevant. Can I not refer to the real Mr Cat in a discussion about Mr Cat of the internet forum?

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
Wow... So I have to be an expert to offer criticism or to question something? That's absurd. Now if I was proposing my perspective as an expert opinion, that would be problematic, but I'm not. But if we wanted to apply your absurd standard, you are not an expert in any of this... so... [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/forum/3-debate-table/"][b]Back to Debate Table[/b][/url]?
[/quote]
You don't have to be an expert to question the Bible. There are plenty of things that need explaining. What you are doing is judging the God of the Bible, to do this would require an expert and then some.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
Alright... first chance of a real discussion... the believer laying down the criteria for the god portrayed in the bible to be a monster. This is almost exciting!
[/quote]
Merely pointing out that the Bible was not written as an evidence to prove something. It will not prove the existence of God nor will it prove God a moral monster. The purpose of the Bible is obscure to all except those who believe in it's God. If you don't believe in God you will get nothing from it. It's not a history book and it would be fairly uninteresting as a fictional story book.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
This is criteria about the bible, not about the god portrayed in the bible... And I am fairly certain Catholics are supposed to believe "[i]biblical inerrancy[/i]"... Also merely because you don't believe in the bible doesn't exclude contextual criticism of the god portrayed by the bible.
[/quote]
How can you separate the book from it's contents? The Biblical inerrancy refers to the word of God. If you read something that you want to see in the Bible, then it is your word not God's and is therefore not inerrant.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']

This is going to be about side stepping the discussion isn't it? But I will try to be fair, we are trying... What's the next criteria for the god portrayed in the bible to be a moral monster according to you?

Wow... again this isn't about the god portrayed in the bible... This is about the bible. Which I am increasingly getting the impression you don't believe in or at least you are extremely doubtful of. But you wrote something here that I respectfully agree with, "[i]the Bible is full of [s]other[/s] men's ideas and misconceptions[/i]". It is also for this reason I consider it chiefly a work of fiction...
[/quote]
Why do I need to side step the discussion? I never said I didn't believe in the Bible, I merely pointed out that there are correct ways and incorrect ways of reading it. Certainly I don't understand much of it and there are many contradictions. That's why I propose either poor or false writing. I don't know which. From my point the Bible is the word of God, because I read it in the manner of which I think I will obtain the word of God. This doesn't mean I'm doing it the only correct way. There is more than one way of skinning the cat! (excuse the pun no offence intended) I've merely tried to point out that the Bible is a complex instrument and cannot be treated as a normal historical text. It's nearest would be I imagine a law book, where clever lawyers can make a text support their argument. Not that I know anything about law books so it will not be necessary for you to debunk this statement.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
This is an appeal to another informal logic fallacy sometimes called the "[i]no true scotsman fallac[/i]y". Again though this doesn't address the criteria that would make the god of the bible a moral monster, but rather it addresses the validity of the bible, which isn't the topic.
[/quote]
No it doesn't! it questions the validity of how you are reading it.


[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
A continuation of the fallacy and what sounds almost like a concession... almost? I don't think you would ramble this long to concede so I'm doubting it is.
[/quote]
I've had discussions with you before and I am aware that you will ramble as long as I provide the fuel. My objective is not to win you over or get you to stop posting. Eventually I will stop posting when I am bored. You're a difficult person to debate with. Either you are very clever or are obscure in your thinking or are determined not to give ground on anything.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
But here is the truly shocking part of this reply, you seem to admit that you see it, but you refuse to accept the premise of this discussion. By writing "[i]Like all written text we can read into it what we want to see.[/i]" You are basically saying that you can read the Bible to mean anything you want it to mean. So basically you are admitting that bias is the only way to read the Bible without accepting that god is a moral monster?
[/quote]
Not at all. I'm saying that the only way of reading the Bible is to read it with a heartfelt purpose in order to obtain what it is intended to convey. If you don't unlock the door you cannot enter the room. I think that would apply to many other books. If you read a book on alternative medicine but only believe in scientific medicine then all you may be able to achieve from it is to debunk it. You won't get anything positive from it if you don't believe you will and don't look.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
Morality will continue to exist without Christianity or the Bible, it existed even before the Bible. But you're question is how can morality exist outside of religion? This implies you believe morality comes from religion/god? I would answer that this is unverifiable and morals in a religious context are largely unfalsifiable. Also that there are plenty of things that classify as "morals" that do not have a religious background to them. Such as slavery is wrong... Almost every religion for an extended period of time condoned slavery.
[/quote]
Slavery is wrong from a Christian viewpoint. From a non religious view what is wrong with the 'Borg' system and Slavery. Hitlerism, killing of inferior people, the sick, old and defective. Breeding for the purpose of superior life forms is logical. We do it with animals and don't think it immoral what makes it immoral for humans apart from souls.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
With changing cultural attitudes to slavery we now consider slavery immoral, in fact the Second Vatican Council clearly for the first time in the history of Catholicism very clearly condemns it. But I suppose you will tell me that there was religious dimensions to this and perhaps while Christianity condoned slavery it didn't support it... which is the problem with sorting morality between a secular and religious context... Because I can point at the religious confederate states of america who believed "god" (Christian/Bible god) supported their cause for slavery ([i]some even argued they were created to be slaves[/i])... while the more secular united states of america who eventually fought to free the slaves also believed god (Christian/Bible god) supported their cause. So who was right?
[/quote]
Yeah and females don't have souls. You made your own point there. They did what you are doing.

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
So this brings us to what I replied to Winchester with, "[b]Ultimately it is people who decide what morality is, even if it is from a supposed 'god'. But I would also assume our sense of morality has evolved with us and is apart of our neurology.[/b]" Which is exactly what we do... it is exactly what religious people do. In fact in studies of the brain almost the exact same brain activity happens when a patient is asked to consider what is "right and wrong" regardless if they are asking their supposed "god" or themselves. So there is simply no indication that any moral comes from a religion... because even when a religious moral becomes unpopular it is no longer acceptable. Such as... execution of notorious heretics.
[/quote]
People decide? Morality evolves? Interesting! If it doesn't come from religion/God where does it originate. What makes us decide or more accurately what drives our consciences to decide what is moral. What makes conscience evolve? What is conscience?

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
Which coming back to you're question... It is unverifiable because there are incoherent definitions of morality within any given religion ([i]moreover through it's history[/i]) and contradictory morals between different religions... It is also largely unfalsifiable to claim that a moral is purely religious, because that implies that some kind of "god" gave it to us, but there is no way to prove or check that. Unless I missed the hotline number in the Bible. The only people deciding and telling us what morals are... are people. That is verifiable and demonstrable.
[/quote]
Any difference in what various religions consider as moral are due to corruption or errors. Do we teach morality? Do you need to be told that it is immoral to expose yourself in public?

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316675916' post='2308461']
Unless... GOD, do you want to join the discussion?
[/quote]
As soon as you start losing you will know God joined the debate.

On the subject of debate. I do not consider this a debate, I have know from as soon as Mr Cat responded to my post that I was in a Kobayashi Maru situation. I've merely been playing along for the amusement. (Not intending to defame you Mr Cat just pointing out that from past experience I know you will not stop!)