Thread: A Moral Arguement Against Theism

a moral arguement against theism

Examples of moral truths.

Here, now, are a few examples of moral principles that I take to be paradigms of moral truths:

P1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

A particularly gross violation of this principle is to be found in the genocidal policies of the Nazi SS who, following the orders of Hitler, slaughtered 6 million Jews, together with countless Gypsies, homosexuals, and other so-called "undesirables." It is no excuse, as I see it, that they believed themselves to be cutting out a cancer from society, or that they were, as Hitler explained in 1933, merely doing to the Jews what Christians had been preaching for 2000 years.[6] Another, more recent, violation of this principle is to be found in the genocidal practices of Milosevic and his henchman for whom it is no excuse to say that they are merely redressing past injustices or, by ethnic cleansing, laying the foundations for a more stable society.

P2. It is morally wrong to provide one's troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.

This principle, or something like it, lies behind our moral revulsion at the policies of the German and Japanese High Commands who selected sexually attractive young women, especially virgins, to give so-called "comfort" to their soldiers. It is irrelevant, I want to say, that most societies, historically, have regarded such comforts as among the accepted spoils of war.

P3. It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.

Perhaps we can imagine situations--such as the plane crash in the Andes--in which cannibalistic acts might be exonerated. But making people eat their own family members--as many Polynesian tribes are reputed to have done--in order to punish them, or to horrify and strike fear into the hearts of their enemies, is unconscionable.

P4. It is morally wrong to practise human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise.

To be sure, human sacrifice was widely accepted by the tribes against whom the children of Israel fought, and--on the other side of the Atlantic--by the Aztecs and Incas. But this--I hope you'll agree--doesn't make the practice acceptable, even if it was done to appease the gods in whom they believed.

P5. It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

Perhaps we can think of situations in which it would be permissible to torture someone who is himself a torturer so as to obtain information as to the whereabouts of prisoners who will otherwise die from the injuries he has inflicted on them. But cases like that of Pope Pius V who watched the Roman Inquisition burn a nonconforming religious scholar in about 1570, fall beyond the moral pale; he can't be exonerated on the grounds that he thought he was thereby saving the dissident's soul from the eternal fires of Hell.

On all of these examples, I would like to think, theists and other morally enlightened persons will agree with me. And I would like to think, further, that theists would agree with me in holding that anyone who committed, caused, commanded, or condoned, acts in violation of any of these principles--the five that I will refer to hereafter as "our" principles--is not only evil but should be regarded with abhorrence.


God's violations of our moral principles.

But now comes the linch-pin of my moral argument against theism. For, as I shall now show, the theist God--as he supposedly reveals himself in the Jewish and Christian Bibles--either himself commits, commands others to commit, or condones, acts which violate every one of our five principles.

In violation of P1, for instance, God himself drowned the whole human race except Noah and his family [Gen. 7:23]; he punished King David for carrying out a census that he himself had ordered and then complied with David's request that others be punished instead of him by sending a plague to kill 70,000 people [II Sam. 24:1-15]; and he commanded Joshua to kill old and young, little children, maidens, and women (the inhabitants of some 31 kingdoms) while pursuing his genocidal practices of ethnic cleansing in the lands that orthodox Jews still regard as part of Greater Israel [see Josh., chapter 10 in particular]. These are just three out of hundreds of examples of God's violations of P1.

In violation of P2, after commanding soldiers to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and young boys without mercy, God permitted the soldiers to use the 32,000 surviving virgins for themselves. [Num. 31:17-18].

In violation of P3, God repeatedly says he has made, or will make, people cannibalize their own children, husbands, wives, parents, and friends because they haven't obeyed him. [Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-58, Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10]

In violation of P4, God condoned Jephthah's act in sacrificing his only child as a burnt offering to God [Judg. 11:30-39].

Finally, in violation of P5, God's own sacrificial "Lamb," Jesus, will watch as he tortures most members of the human race for ever and ever, mainly because they haven't believed in him. The book of Revelation tells us that "everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain" [Rev. 13:8] will go to Hell where they "will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever: and they have no rest day or night" [Rev. 14:10-11].


extracts from A Moral Argument for Atheism.
Raymond D. Bradley

thats the problem of theisim.

we are told by the bible that God loves all, jesus loves all and that we are all his children.
but if we don't fit his description of perfect...we will be tortured in the most horrible maner imaginable forever and ever.

Originally Posted by wallaby

thats the problem of theisim.

we are told by the bible that God loves all, jesus loves all and that we are all his children.
but if we don't fit his description of perfect...we will be tortured in the most horrible maner imaginable forever and ever.

This sums up pretty well the "love" that god shows everyone.

[quote="geezer"]a moral arguement against theism

Examples of moral truths.

Here, now, are a few examples of moral principles that I take to be paradigms of moral truths:

P1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

A particularly gross violation of this principle is to be found in the genocidal policies of the Nazi SS who, following the orders of Hitler, slaughtered 6 million Jews, together with countless Gypsies, homosexuals, and other so-called "undesirables." It is no excuse, as I see it, that they believed themselves to be cutting out a cancer from society, or that they were, as Hitler explained in 1933, merely doing to the Jews what Christians had been preaching for 2000 years.[6] Another, more recent, violation of this principle is to be found in the genocidal practices of Milosevic and his henchman for whom it is no excuse to say that they are merely redressing past injustices or, by ethnic cleansing, laying the foundations for a more stable society.

P2. It is morally wrong to provide one's troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.

This principle, or something like it, lies behind our moral revulsion at the policies of the German and Japanese High Commands who selected sexually attractive young women, especially virgins, to give so-called "comfort" to their soldiers. It is irrelevant, I want to say, that most societies, historically, have regarded such comforts as among the accepted spoils of war.

P3. It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.

Perhaps we can imagine situations--such as the plane crash in the Andes--in which cannibalistic acts might be exonerated. But making people eat their own family members--as many Polynesian tribes are reputed to have done--in order to punish them, or to horrify and strike fear into the hearts of their enemies, is unconscionable.

P4. It is morally wrong to practise human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise.

To be sure, human sacrifice was widely accepted by the tribes against whom the children of Israel fought, and--on the other side of the Atlantic--by the Aztecs and Incas. But this--I hope you'll agree--doesn't make the practice acceptable, even if it was done to appease the gods in whom they believed.

P5. It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

Perhaps we can think of situations in which it would be permissible to torture someone who is himself a torturer so as to obtain information as to the whereabouts of prisoners who will otherwise die from the injuries he has inflicted on them. But cases like that of Pope Pius V who watched the Roman Inquisition burn a nonconforming religious scholar in about 1570, fall beyond the moral pale; he can't be exonerated on the grounds that he thought he was thereby saving the dissident's soul from the eternal fires of Hell.

On all of these examples, I would like to think, theists and other morally enlightened persons will agree with me. And I would like to think, further, that theists would agree with me in holding that anyone who committed, caused, commanded, or condoned, acts in violation of any of these principles--the five that I will refer to hereafter as "our" principles--is not only evil but should be regarded with abhorrence.


God's violations of our moral principles.

But now comes the linch-pin of my moral argument against theism. For, as I shall now show, the theist God--as he supposedly reveals himself in the Jewish and Christian Bibles--either himself commits, commands others to commit, or condones, acts which violate every one of our five principles.

In violation of P1, for instance, God himself drowned the whole human race except Noah and his family [Gen. 7:23]; he punished King David for carrying out a census that he himself had ordered and then complied with David's request that others be punished instead of him by sending a plague to kill 70,000 people

Hi,

What in the world did you want to achieve with your statement?

These are stories written by men, and nothing else, you can get inspiration from God, but not a whole dictation.
You are critisizing men's views from thousands of years ago, not GOD. They needed some drama to get the message through.

Good scrod, Geezer, do you not see the complete and total illogical absurdness of this presentation.

While the writer does not point out his obvious disbelieve in God, my assumption is that disbelief is the basis of this masterful piece of oxymoronic presentation.

So the writer does not believe in God and then condemns Him for actions reported in a book I must suppose he believes is nothing more than a collection of mythical fairy tales.

There is something wrong there, Geezer. If God does not exist, He could hardly have done any of the horribly immoral things he is accused of. And if the book is a book of myths, then we must assume the events it records did not actually happen.

The only way these events and circumstances could be used to allege that God is immoral under His own standards is to:
1. Admit God exists.
2. Admit his laws are morally just.
3. Admit that the stories in the Bible are true.
4. Deny that God has the right to execute judgment based on the laws you accepted in point 2.

In this context these events cannot be the basis of a disbelief nor even the justification for disbelief. You cannot logically look at material you believe to be false and use that to prove something else is false. It can only be false, if you first accept it as true. But then, if it is true and you believe it is wrong, well. . . Hopefully, you can begin see the logical dilemma that this kind of double negative thinking leads to.

It seems to me that the intent here is:

1. To prove that God does not exist because He did malevolent things.
2. To prove that God does not exist because if he did exist, He would not have done malevolent things.
3. To show that God exists, but does malevolent things.

I hesitate to call this writing stupidly asinine ignorance, but that is the worst characterization of it I can think of off the top of my head.

To your credit, Geezer, you were not the author. For that, I commend you.

But, hypothetically assuming the mythology of the christian bible to *not* be mythology but history, how then does the text that Geezer provided demonstrate it's illogical nature or that it is of "stupidly asinine ignorance?"

I'm not saying that I agree with each point, but I'm interested in the responses that christians have regarding them. The Abrahamic God was a very malevolent being if it existed and was responsible for the events that the bible records.

Of course, my own assertion is that the myths of the bible are mostly written accounts of oral tradition, which was comprised of stories to influence behavior of a population. Humans have always been guilty of this and we see it today with stories of Santa Claus who keeps a list of bad kids and rewards the nice ones with gifts at the end of the year. It isn't surprising that such stories of antiquity would find their way into the written documents of the cult. Cults of non-literate societies are replete with such stories even today. The skinwalker tradition of the Navajo, for instance.

Well, SkinWalker, my feeling is that anyone who can seriously defend that presentation as being rational, reasonable or logical has to be in some way demented.

Even if the accounts in the Bible are totally mythically akin to the skinwalker tradition of Navaho and several other southwestern Native American ethinic groups, both would probably still represent some actual event or occurance or phenomenon which was beyond the comprehension of their knowledge or definition within the vocabulary of their language.

The incessant and nonsensical comparison of God to the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is beyond the comprehension of my knowledge and defies any definition which I can find in within my vocabulary.

All of this kind of stuff undermines your credibility, SkinWalker, as does your defense of Silas' untenable claim that Einstein was an atheist on the other thread.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

There is something wrong there, Geezer. If God does not exist, He could hardly have done any of the horribly immoral things he is accused of. And if the book is a book of myths, then we must assume the events it records did not actually happen..

and we are all entitled to an opinion, regardless, if we believe or not.
just because I have the good sense to not believe, I'm not allowed to understand, or condemn the inane stupidity and immoral aspects of a god and the religion of the bible, and the people who believe it, or is it you dont like the truth, well you could'nt, could you.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

The incessant and nonsensical comparison of God to the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is beyond the comprehension of my knowledge and defies any definition which I can find in within my vocabulary.

.

the reason you get this comparison is because. The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist.
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
Proof that an event has occurred is somewhat different.
It can not be proved conclusively that any particular event has or has not occurred but the probability of an event occurring can be estimated depending on:-

The strength of the evidence.
The volume of evidence.
The quality of evidence.
The probability of the evidence being caused by a different event.

Independent witness corroboration.

For example: -
Event 1 - President Kennedy was assassinated.
Volume of evidence - Many witnesses, Televised, A Body, Bullet wounds.
Quality of evidence - Precise forensic evidence of cause of death, ballistics evidence linked to murder weapon. Assassin's confession.
Alternative event probability - Accidental firearm discharge unlikely because of multiple hits on target, suicide unlikely because no powder burns, no weapon found near victim. Mistaken identity or wrong target unlikely …..
Independent witness corroboration - Excellent, Directly seen by hundreds, Indirectly seen by millions.

Event 2: - A talking snake convinced a genetically engineered female to eat an apple that caused her to gain knowledge of good and evil.
Volume of evidence - Contained only in one book (Genesis) of uncertain origin.
Quality of evidence - Very poor, Snakes have no physical means of talking, The interpretation of Genesis is disputed among Christians, The eating of Apples does not cause knowledge to be gained. Serious technical difficulties in remainder of this book. Contradicts accounts from other religions.
Alternative event probability - Very High, More likely to have been an illustrative or metaphorical event rather than a literal event.
Independent witness corroboration, No witnesses.
There is a very high probability that Event 1 occurred, literally, as stated.
There is a very low probability that Event 2 occurred, literally, as stated.
It is not possible to prove or disprove the occurrence of an event you can only argue for the probability of it's occurrence.
The Christians say their God exists. The onus of proof lies with the Christians. Atheists do not have to disprove because they have not made the claim.
Christians say Genesis occured. The evidence indicates otherwise and relies on the existance of a God which has not been proven.
The above statements are not absolute, many alternative hypotheses exist as to the nature of existence, perception and reality.


so you see, the chances of a god existing, or an easter bunny are the same.

What I find wholly flawed in your argument Geezer, to the point of inducing a severe sense of pathos, is that you clearly feel that by dismissing the Christian God you have dismissed all gods. Well, duh!!

Apart from winding up poor Dayton you don't seem to have delivered very much. Sorry, if this sounds hyper-critical, but surely if you are going to submit a post that seeks to prove a point using logic, then there aught to be some logic within it.

Sorry to have taken so long to answer the Geezer, but there is not much in there worth answering. Plus I have been somewhat preoccupied with some other stuff.

Mostly, I want to point out that putting literal meanings to the stories in the Bible in an effort to disprove it is as stupid as putting literal meanings to the stories to prove it.

Whatever the literal understanding of these stories may be, such as the scene in which the serpent dupes Adam and Eve into eating the wrong fruit and then they suffer the consequences thereof, the greater significance of the story is what it stands for.

If you are an evolutionist you might see this story as representing the transition of homo sapien from animal to human. Prior to the incident, they were apparently like all other animals, with no realization of their mortality, no ability to do wrong because they were responsible only to their instincts rather than their thoughts.

Following this incident, they were aware of right and wrong and they became aware of their mortality.

(Just as a little aside here, why don’t you play God for a moment and try to explain this to Moses in terms he can understand and place on parchment in the language of his day?)

Surely, you do not have an evolutionist view of some mutation in which some dumb ape-like animals bred and brought forth a man of vast knowledge and understanding. That almost sounds like the Genesis story.

The next thing I note in this story in an allegory to the decision we all get to make in life. There were two trees in the Garden which were described – the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. In the story, they chose knowledge rather than eternal life. That is the same choice each person faces between the time he is born and the time he expires. It would seem rather obvious which choice you have made.

There are many die-hard Bible believers who will disagree with me, probably more than you, but whether stories such as the Garden of Eden and the Trees and the serpent and the fig leaves are literally true is of no significance when compared to what the stories represent.

When you attempt to cast doubt upon the Bible or the existence of God by demeaning the literal meanings, you are no more effective than the person trying to justify the Bible and God by the same literal meanings.

As to proving God exists, no Christian really thinks he can do that. Only God proves Himself and He does that to whom He chooses. If He has not chosen to reveal Himself to you, who am I to question His wisdom?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Sorry to have taken so long to answer the Geezer, but there is not much in there worth answering. Plus I have been somewhat preoccupied with some other stuff.

Mostly, I want to point out that putting literal meanings to the stories in the Bible in an effort to disprove it is as stupid as putting literal meanings to the stories to prove it.

Whatever the literal understanding of these stories may be, such as the scene in which the serpent dupes Adam and Eve into eating the wrong fruit and then they suffer the consequences thereof, the greater significance of the story is what it stands for.

If you are an evolutionist you might see this story as representing the transition of homo sapien from animal to human. Prior to the incident, they were apparently like all other animals, with no realization of their mortality, no ability to do wrong because they were responsible only to their instincts rather than their thoughts.

Following this incident, they were aware of right and wrong and they became aware of their mortality.

(Just as a little aside here, why don’t you play God for a moment and try to explain this to Moses in terms he can understand and place on parchment in the language of his day?)

Surely, you do not have an evolutionist view of some mutation in which some dumb ape-like animals bred and brought forth a man of vast knowledge and understanding. That almost sounds like the Genesis story.

The next thing I note in this story in an allegory to the decision we all get to make in life. There were two trees in the Garden which were described – the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. In the story, they chose knowledge rather than eternal life. That is the same choice each person faces between the time he is born and the time he expires. It would seem rather obvious which choice you have made.

There are many die-hard Bible believers who will disagree with me, probably more than you, but whether stories such as the Garden of Eden and the Trees and the serpent and the fig leaves are literally true is of no significance when compared to what the stories represent.

When you attempt to cast doubt upon the Bible or the existence of God by demeaning the literal meanings, you are no more effective than the person trying to justify the Bible and God by the same literal meanings.

As to proving God exists, no Christian really thinks he can do that. Only God proves Himself and He does that to whom He chooses. If He has not chosen to reveal Himself to you, who am I to question His wisdom?

Sorry to say this Daytonturner, but I find that Geezer, gave at least honest answers, and you Daytonturner just read to him, Because your answers were thought through, but still weak, and maybe your conviction but certainly not your observations.
Its easier to talk to someone when youre on the same "wavelength".That way you can understand each other better.
Man should at least have one understanding with each other, and that is not the Bible, the Koran, or God, or Allah, just respect for each other.

"Only God proves Himself and He does that to whom He chooses. If He has not chosen to reveal Himself to you, who am I to question His wisdom"

"GOD" is not a being, not humanlike, "He", or "She" or "It", and does not prove himself, and if "He" would, "He" would not choose, but just be there.
I say it again, but a "GOD", who loves, chooses, proves, punishes, who is wrathfull, just is not possible, in these times it is ludicrous, propostorous, with a lot of wishfull thinking. A "GOD" who created in the beginning, is also impossible.

Imagine how "HE"created, like creating a clay vaas maybe.
By comparing "GOD", which for me is, everything all around(ALL-GOD),
to having human qualities, you throw away and HIDE the TRUTH.
And the TRUTH is wondrous, bringing man together.

We should be in contact with everything that is natural, we should be aware of the greatness of life, which we take for granted.

So for me, there is not A BEING swerving around, checking on us.
Have you noticed the dozens of "Golden Calves" lately on TV or in the movies.



Surely, you do not have an evolutionist view of some mutation in which some dumb ape-like animals bred and brought forth a man of vast knowledge and understanding. That almost sounds like the Genesis story.

Either you are naieve or dumb, or you are trying to manipulate.
Or what is your view of how man came to be, than?

For myself it is not the least important question, of how man or earth or the Universe came to be.
MY QUESTION IS HOW IS MAN?
HOW IS MAN TODAY?(As RETARDED as he was, a 1000 years ago)

HART---------FOOD----------SEX-------------ANGER

Awareness_truth wrote:

Sorry to say this Daytonturner, but I find that Geezer, gave honest answers. . .

Sorry to say this Awareness_truth, but Geezer’s hypothesis about the eating of “apples” is a complete distortion of the story he disputes.

Geezer had said:

The eating of Apples does not cause knowledge to be gained.

Here he is perpetuating the erroneous suggestion that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was an apple. There is nothing in the Genesis account which would support that idea. The fruit is described only as a “fruit.” One might build a better case for the idea that it was a fig, since the story says they chose to cover their genitals with fig leaves.

Plus, there still remain those who disagree with the Warren Report and believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and that there was more than one shooter. And that is with thousands of witnesses and film, and there is still disputings and controversy!!!! I remember that day very well as I worked for a newspaper and the wire services were going crazy with bells and bulletins.

I am not certain exactly how to interpret what you have said. Are you suggesting that his answers were honest and mine were dishonest? Or were you suggesting that I was saying his comments were dishonest. I do not judge the honesty of someone else’s post and certainly not based on whether or not I agree with them.

I do not agree with Geezer at all on this issue, but I, too, think he is honest and sincere in expressing his feelings and beliefs.

Awareness_truth also said:

Its easier to talk to someone when youre on the same "wavelength".That way you can understand each other better. Man should at least have one understanding with each other, and that is not the Bible,or God, or Allah(not NESCESSARY).

This is true only to the extent that one wishes to bask in the security of his own unchallenged beliefs. If the only people we talk to or discuss matters with are those who are likeminded, we succeed only in perpetuating and reinforcing our own misconceptions and mistaken beliefs.

I could agree that perhaps it would be “nice” if we all had one understanding, but only to the degree that everyone else had “my understanding.” (LOL)

Awareness_truth further postulates:

"GOD" is not a being, not humanlike, "He", or "She" or "It", and does not prove himself, and if "He" would, "He" would not choose, but just be there.

As to God not being a being, that could be a matter of belief. Even those of us who believe there is a God do not agree as to how His essence plays out in comparison to human form. (The term “He” is not generally intended to attribute a sex to God, but rather to provide some personality beyond “It” and is usually objected to by people who just want something to take exception to.) If you are suggesting that in His spiritual state He does not look like humans, I only say, “Who knows?”

I am not certain of your spiritual beliefs, but I would suggest they do not align with the mainstream Christianity doctrine of salvation through grace which believes that salvation is a work of God, not of man. Thus it is God who does the choosing and He is more involved than “just being there.”

Awareness_truth concludes:

Surely, you do not have an evolutionist view of some mutation in which some dumb ape-like animals bred and brought forth a man of vast knowledge and understanding. That almost sounds like the Genesis story.
Yes , I DO: a braincell every thousand years. And not in 10 years chewbacca.

You do not believe what I said if you believe “a braincell every thousand years. My statement connoted the idea that two chimpanzees or two gorillas or two somethings bred and the female gave birth to a human child. Not even Darwinists believe mutation can produce that great of a change.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Awareness_truth wrote:

Sorry to say this Daytonturner, but I find that Geezer, gave honest answers. . .

Sorry to say this Awareness_truth, but Geezer’s hypothesis about the eating of “apples” is a complete distortion of the story he disputes.

Geezer had said:

The eating of Apples does not cause knowledge to be gained.

Here he is perpetuating the erroneous suggestion that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was an apple. There is nothing in the Genesis account which would support that idea. The fruit is described only as a “fruit.” One might build a better case for the idea that it was a fig, since the story says they chose to cover their genitals with fig leaves.

Plus, there still remain those who disagree with the Warren Report and believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and that there was more than one shooter. And that is with thousands of witnesses and film, and there is still disputings and controversy!!!! I remember that day very well as I worked for a newspaper and the wire services were going crazy with bells and bulletins.

I am not certain exactly how to interpret what you have said. Are you suggesting that his answers were honest and mine were dishonest? Or were you suggesting that I was saying his comments were dishonest. I do not judge the honesty of someone else’s post and certainly not based on whether or not I agree with them.

I do not agree with Geezer at all on this issue, but I, too, think he is honest and sincere in expressing his feelings and beliefs.

Awareness_truth also said:

Its easier to talk to someone when youre on the same "wavelength".That way you can understand each other better. Man should at least have one understanding with each other, and that is not the Bible,or God, or Allah(not NESCESSARY).

This is true only to the extent that one wishes to bask in the security of his own unchallenged beliefs. If the only people we talk to or discuss matters with are those who are likeminded, we succeed only in perpetuating and reinforcing our own misconceptions and mistaken beliefs.

I could agree that perhaps it would be “nice” if we all had one understanding, but only to the degree that everyone else had “my understanding.” (LOL)

Awareness_truth further postulates:

"GOD" is not a being, not humanlike, "He", or "She" or "It", and does not prove himself, and if "He" would, "He" would not choose, but just be there.

As to God not being a being, that could be a matter of belief. Even those of us who believe there is a God do not agree as to how His essence plays out in comparison to human form. (The term “He” is not generally intended to attribute a sex to God, but rather to provide some personality beyond “It” and is usually objected to by people who just want something to take exception to.) If you are suggesting that in His spiritual state He does not look like humans, I only say, “Who knows?”

I am not certain of your spiritual beliefs, but I would suggest they do not align with the mainstream Christianity doctrine of salvation through grace which believes that salvation is a work of God, not of man. Thus it is God who does the choosing and He is more involved than “just being there.”

Awareness_truth concludes:

Surely, you do not have an evolutionist view of some mutation in which some dumb ape-like animals bred and brought forth a man of vast knowledge and understanding. That almost sounds like the Genesis story.
Yes , I DO: a braincell every thousand years. And not in 10 years chewbacca.

You do not believe what I said if you believe “a braincell every thousand years. My statement connoted the idea that two chimpanzees or two gorillas or two somethings bred and the female gave birth to a human child. Not even Darwinists believe mutation can produce that great of a change.

I'm sorry Daytonturner, I corrected some statements, I maybe missed your comments, I'll come back on that.