u/HatsOptional58

If someone did something bad 
because a voice in their head told them to do it, 
I think most people would think they weren't acting rationally. 

Even if they said 
it was the voice of God.

So why do so many people think 
it's reasonable to do something 
because a book told them to do it? 

Even if they said the book 
was from God.

The scenarios aren't so different ........ 
in each .... 
there is a lack of valid moral reasoning.

Simply pointing to a source - - 
regardless of whether it's a mental voice ..... 
or a text - - 
is not a valid substitute 
for critical evaluation 
of the action itself.

The age of the text 
or the number of people who've read it 
doesn't make it any more worthy of consideration.

If you didn't know ....
There's more than one old, 
well read text "from God" 
out there to choose from.

If you use the bible for guidance 
without making evaluations 
based on moral principles 
and considering the well being of others, 
the guidance is no more valid 
than someone who follows a voice in their head.

It's how we get Christians 
who support or engage in: 
the persecution of marginalized groups, 
or misogyny, 
or the rejection of immigrants, 
or the beating of children, 
and a host of other bad actions.

It's an illustration of why the bible or Christianity 
has never been 
and will never be 
a valid foundation 
on which to base moral judgements and opinions.

Saying that the bible told me to do it 
is no better justification 
than saying a voice told me.

If there is a God who is also a personal god, 
the only way I could see that as being possible 
would be if they were a supernatural being with human characteristics to include self-awareness, thoughts, emotions, maybe a sense of humor, etc.

They're basically someone you could have a cosmic beer with.

They would be powerful, but they would not need to be all powerful, or omnipresent, etc.. I think not all power is most likely.

I think we can rule out personally communicating with people or forming personal bonds with individuals. That's just imagination or wishful thinking.

If they have personal characteristics, they wouldn't need to be morally perfect at all. There's no good reason to think they would be.

They certainly don't seem to be interacting or interfering with anything that's going on here on earth. 

If they are, then it's much more likely that they are absolutely not good or loving.

They seem to be hands off. 

The best scenario I could think of 
where they could be good or loving 
would be that they created the world 
with everything that people need to be fed, and sheltered, and cared for - - 
and they gave us the intellect and the awareness of moral principles to make it work.

They left it up to us to make it happen. 

If we fail, then it's on us. No help is coming.

And we are obviously failing. 

If they are watching, they are most certainly shaking their head with disappointment.

For the most part, 
I would say that I am cool with any theology 
that puts the responsibility on humanity 
to make things work. 
That would put believers and non-believers in the same boat, 
and maybe get humanity on the right track..

Christians often seem flabbergasted at the idea of atheists or agnostics who would not worship God if they knew they were real.

Why is that? It implies that worship would be the natural or desired or default thing to do.

But worship of a god is not a moral or ethical thing to do. Worship has no utility or inherent value or goodness or virtue. 

And there is nothing wrong with not wanting to worship a god or anything else.

I would have no inclination to do it, and I don't think that an infinite, all-powerful being would want to be worshipped.

Worship is not a necessary element of devotion, respect or love.

We can deeply respect, admire, and love someone (or something) without subordinating ourselves to them or engaging in ritualized adulation.

To think that such a god would want to be worshipped, would be to assign small, petty, human characteristics to it. 

The ones who are promoting worship are the people and institutions of Christianity and other religions. They are the ones who benefit - - not any potential god.

I personally think that if a god does exist, and they care at all about people and their behavior, they would care about how people live their lives - not worship.

I've never rejected Jesus .... or God for that matter.

Because Jesus has never offered me anything to reject. 

He's never offered me 
any free gift of salvation 
or forgiveness 
or anything else.

I can't decline an offer 
I've never received.

The only ones I've rejected 
are people 
making competing claims 
about Jesus or God, 

and making offers and promises 
on their behalf.

And the offers and promises they make 
are ones 
that they themselves 
cannot fulfill.

And their claims about Jesus or God 
are ones 
that are too unreasonable 
and implausible 
to reasonably believe.

Belief in Christianity or any other religion 
is not faith in God.

True faith is determined by complete trust or confidence 
in someone or something.

If you believe in God, 
and TRULY trust them and have faith in them, 
you wouldn't believe in any religion.

You would trust in whatever they have planned, 
without trying to guess what that might be. 

You certainly wouldn't ask for anything 
or expect anything from them.

But that's what Christianity does. 
Instead of having faith and trust in God, 
it develops an entire doctrine of beliefs 
of what they expect 
God to deliver to them.

Instead of having faith IN God, 
they are dictating TO God.

That's not faith in God, 

it's faith in a religion,
it's faith in themselves 
to make the right guesses, 
and believe the right things - - 
which is arguably impossible - - 
especially when considering 
the disparate beliefs of Christianity 
and other religions.

I saw a video of Cliff Knechtle where he said:

"This big myth of agnosticism, that you can live your life not knowing and that's intellectually acceptable and intellectually respected. It's impossible to live an agnostic life out. You have to decide, is this person valuable or not? If so, why or why not? 

You have to answer the question, what's the purpose of my life? What are my ambitions and goals? You have no choice. You have no choice but to make ethical decisions every day. Do you cheat the IRS or do you pay your taxes?

And I'm sorry, if you don't ask the question, is there life after death or not, you're brain dead."

>>>>>

This is a very bad 
apologetic straw man argument. 

I can live an agnostic life out just fine.

First of all, everyone lives their life not knowing if god exists or not. 

It's intellectually dishonest to think that you do.

Here's MY basic criteria for what to be agnostic about.

As a general rule ......
if it's not important for living my life .........
and it's something 
that I can't reasonably know ..............
I'm agnostic about it.

If it's something that's important or necessary for living my life ......
I'm not agnostic.

I can live my life quite well without knowing the answer to the existence or nature of god. 

In fact ..... 
I have no other choice.

I don't see the point in taking a guess, 
also known as having a belief, 
because my guess won't change the truth.

I don't know, and I don't care, if there any sort of god

I'm not agnostic about religion because religion is nothing more than human truth claims. 

If I believed everything everyone said, I'd be in trouble.

Religious claims definitely do impact our lives, and have caused tremendous harm. They deserve scrutiny and skepticism ..... just like any other truth claim.

I am not agnostic about 
moral or ethical issues ..... 
or how I treat or care about other people, 
because those are incredibly important. 

And they aren't related to, 
or dependent on 
belief or non-belief in God.

I am agnostic about 
whether there is life after death, 
because: 
I can't possibly know, 
and my belief .........
won't change the answer.

It's really not that complicated.

Is it really believable, reasonable, or logical 
that a universal God 
would have a chosen people .... 
that they would then "unchoose"?

Is it really believable 
that they would only communicate 
with a small group of people 
and give specific duties, privileges, laws, and commandments 
only for this people?

The questions are rhetorical. 

It is not believable or reasonable. 

It obviously started with Judaism.

Christianity came along and the chosen people became anyone who accepts Jesus as the Messiah.

Islam then came on the scene and the new chosen people became those who submit to the will of Allah.

In modern times, the chosen ones became the choosy mothers who choose Jiff.

The idea of a chosen people and the competing definitions of who is chosen have all the qualities of human constructs. 

The Abrahamic religions are certainly not indicative of something that could be expected from an intelligent designer of the universe.