Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

A Giant MisunderstandingThe fault in your argument lies in the fact that you don't know what atheism is or what atheism states. But I am getting ahead of myself as you make some mistakes before you even get to atheism. " First, this question assumes that there's a moral standard that is higher than God that He Himself must answer to but if God has to answer for anything including His own morals, then I think it would be safe to say that God isn't really a god at all." Ummm correct actually. God really isn't a god at all. An omipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent being creates paradoxes because it'd posses mutually exclusive properties that cannot co-exist within the same parameters. The real fault however lies in the fact that you "assume" that there's a "moral standard" when we see no evidence for such a thing. I actually did a debate recently on this. There is no such thing as an "objective morality" or an "objective moral standard" considering morals actually DO change from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion, ect. "Second, this question assumes that God is not the absolute standard of morality but if that is truly the case, then once again how can God be called God if He's not the absolute standard of morality? " Again he can't. There is no such thing as an absolute moral standard. That's just the way it is. Learn to live with it. People think very differently on different moral dillemas based on personal opinions, experiences, ect. Essentially what is moral comes down to who makes a better case. "Now, I can try to argue and show evidence for how God is indeed the absolute standard of morality but at the moment I don't think that's necessary based on the following argument." Ummm you really should since you've presented a claim and haven't backed it up with anything but thought experiments that I easily tore down. What Atheism Is And Is NotAll of this is actually really irrelevant and instead of actually making a case for why god is immoral you're really just using the fact that I'm an atheist to say that there's no possible way for me to even judge his morals which I could write off as an ad homenim. The fault in THIS argument lies in the fact that you obviously have no understanding of what atheism is. Atheism makes absolutely no claim on morality, objectiveness, subjectiveness, ect. The only thing and I mean the ONLY thing that atheism makes a claim on is the belief in a deity and in this case the lack of a belief. Still this is really irrelevant but I should have enough room to refute this nonsense and still make my case. "As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. Let's look at the inability for the atheistic worldview to offer objective morality." Well first off there is no "atheistic worldview" that is universal. There are many atheists and almost every one is a very different KIND of atheist. There are atheists who believe the universe is materialistic and yet there are others who follow spiritualism and believe in ghosts. Secondly atheism doesn't have to provide objective morality because 1. It doesn't exist as established breifly before and 2. Atheism makes no claim on morality. "Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly, and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning." Again atheism doesn't have a worldview or a claim on morality. But really how is this weak intellectual reasoning? One does not want to cause detriment to society and so one rules that something that would be a detriment is immoral. That's not weak that's just basic deductive reasoning. "Would such a norm be wrong?" Yes for exactly the reasons stated above. If one does not want to cause detriment onto others than one does not do things that cause detriment. Simple. Why is this even in your argument?"If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong?" I've done this twice already just read the reasons above. "opinions don"t make ethical standards." Exactly which is why no ethical universal standard exists. People come up with their own ethical standards which is mostly derived by laws of some sort given by an authority figure or through their own reasoning. "If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer, and that would imply a Moral-Law Giver." Well yes if your strawman atheist did say this then that would be a fallacy but it definitely wouldn't imply that there was an external force it just implys that he doesn't know WHY it's wrong. But your strawman atheist either doesn't exist or you're just not showing us he exists. Either way I can just write this off. This next paragraphs argument can be refuted with my answers above and the fact that enslavement causes more uneccessary suffering that in brings in in production and "happiness" for the slave owners, which is what makes it wrong. "By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self-contradictory and can lead to anarchy." While yes it is reativistic and can change this does not mean it's "dangerous" or will lead to "anarchy" you have done nothing to actually establish these claims but the thing is is that all of this is IRRELEVANT.This next paragraph is interesting since it proposes that the Bible offers the ulitmate moral code. But to whom? To everyone? Only Christians? Only CERTAIN Christians because let's not forget there's about 30,000 different flavors of Christianity each differing slightly on what is right and wrong. Even then which parts are to be taken as literal moral code and other as metaphorical? The Bible does not offer the ultimate moral standard as you say it does because if it did then everyone would follow wha the bible says to the letter and well we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The remainder of this is you bringing up actual valid points from well established intellectuals but never refuting them other than to say "Atheists can't make moral judgements"!Well let me actually make a case with my remaining characters. My moral standard derives from what is detrimental to humanity, society, and individuals in that order of importance. If something is detrimental to an individual but helps society than in my opinion it is moral so long as the reward is greater than the cost. Now this being said where does genocide fall? Well it's a detriment to societies as vast numbers of them are being wiped out. It's a detriment to indivuals as they are the ones being killed, and it is a detriment to humanity due to the shrikage of the gene pool and thereby the lowering of our chances to survive as a species. This being said I can essentially just use my arugment from last debate since I for one have never commited genocide twice and god has."This is seen earliest in the story of the bilical flood. Now in this story, if readers are not aware, God decides to drown each and every thing because man has become too corrupt. That's right because one species of people has defied the etherial sky daddy's instructions he decides to drown every single species of living thing, oh except 2 of each species and one family of eight people.This is not the only example of Gods genocidal tendancies however. This is also extremely prominant in the story of Moses and the Pharaoh. In this uplifiting tale Moses tries to convince the Pharaoh to (as the famous quote goes) let his people go. God tells Moses to go tell the Pharaoh to let his people go and to show him a miracle. And Moses does this like a good little prophet. 7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: andAaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Moses warns the Pharaoh that he will send more plagues upon him if he does not let his people go but the Pharaoh still refuses! Why? Is it because he was just being a general jerk? Was the Pharaoh just having a bad day? Or did God INTENTIONALLY "harden the pharaohs heart" to make sure he could say no so that God could send down his plagues and show off for a bit? 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. 7:4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: 10:2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD. 14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. Well his grand masterpiece of a plague is to murder all firstborn Egyptian babies throughout the land despite them having no part in the enslavement of the Hebrews. God forcibly manipulates the Pharaohs mind in order to justify his genocide of an entire generation of Egyptian kids."http://www.debate.org...http://www.religionfacts.com...