yeh i also used to think like this but i think nobody wants to believe in immoral God or monster because if God is cruel and immoral then there is no reason to believe that he will be happy with us in heaven or he won't throw us in hell just because of trivial mistakes. If God is immoral then there is no reason to believe that whatever He says is truth and these words are really from God not from Satan. I think this is the basic mistake in this argument.
Exactly.
This is why only an atheist can be a true believer. And I mean a true believer in the most fundamental sense when God = absolute good and not the petty sadistic god of Abrahamic religions.
This has already been discussed therefore I will simply repost:
As far as morals go consider this:
1. Doing good because of Jannah. Motivation: reward; this is immoral
2. Doing good because of Jahannam. Motivation: fear; this is immoral too
3. Doing good for the sake of it. Motivation: because it is the right thing to do; this is the only true moral stance
The only way to show true respect for God (and hence be truly moral) is to act morally while ignoring god's existence."FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?
More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher Andr? Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in Manhattan," suggests.
This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted - at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.
During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: "Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.
Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfil God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favour; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."
*excerpt from "Defenders of Faith" by Slavoj Zizek
Topic: hi to all