God-rejectors: They have nothing – Morality

One argument that has been used by those who reject God and the Torah is that he is evil. Some atheists are so adamant about this that they’ll boldly state that even if it would be convincingly demonstrated that God existed, they would still disrespect him and not worship him. And why?

Some will attempt to play the philosophy card and, based on an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus, will say that the fact that there is evil in the world means that God is evil as he must allow its continued existence. Some will look at God’s law or the things he does and commands others to do in the Jewish Bible and judge them as evil, like when he orders the Israelites to decimate cities and their inhabitants, or when he prohibits homosexual intercourse which is accepted and right in this day and age, or when he destroys the vast majority of human life with the Deluge or Catastrophe (more commonly known as “the flood of Noah).

For such people, when the accounting of God’s acts in the Jewish Bible clashes with an individual’s morality, it is God that is labelled immoral.

There’s an otherwise good guy called Larken Rose, an anarchist (meaning one who rejects the legitimacy of rulers and authority), who says that he likes the god of the “new testament” but … oh, let me just show you.

So Larken accuses the God of the Jewish Bible as teaching war-mongering, torture and murder and blind obedience to authority. That is definitely painting him as evil.

The anti-theist, Richard Dawkins, said the following in his book, The God Delusion.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I was watching a debate between Matt Dillahunty, an atheist and a promulgator of that way of thinking, and Cliffe Knechtle, a christian who thinks God died as a man (the bad vs the worse, yet which is which?). And in that debate, whilst dealing with the question of whether all religions lead to God, Dillahunty proclaimed that if the character depicted in the Bible is the God judging everyone, then he is morally superior to that God and would want nothing to do with that God. In his view, he cares more about people than God does. He continued that at least he (Dillahunty) didn’t sanctioned slavery and genocide.

Other modern anti-theists and their acolytes are no different in voicing their complaints about the morality of the God of “the old testament.” If I can find it, I’ll add a clip here of atheists being asked whether they would worship God if they were convinced by the evidence and those same atheists refusing using the morality argument.

Let’s not also forget those who bring up natural disasters and the deaths of living creatures and humans seemingly without purpose or justice as another reason why God and his existence are rejected.

So do these God rejectors have any substance to their argument when they bring up these accusations?

With confidence, knowledge and experience, I can say that these accusations come from such a lack of truth, from such a lack of consistency that to even give them the time of day, to take them seriously is both laughable and disheartening when it is seen just how many people actually absorb them into their thoughts, accept them and use them to deliberately cut themselves of from the Source of life.

The first thing I’ll point out is that in order for these people to argue morality against God, they must reject him as God. Please, I humbly ask that you take on board what I just said. I did not say that a person sees the supposed immorality and then uses that to find reason to reject God. No, that’s not what happens! They must first reject him as God and then bring the case of immorality against … against what? An inevitable straw man, that’s the best answer.

Let me explain! According to Torah, who is God? He is the uncaused First Cause. He knowingly created everything in the universe. He created time, space and life; he’s the foundation of it all. So that, by very definition, puts him in the place to make the rules, as with the harmonious relationships between matter, and matter and energy, so it is with the harmony of human interactions with the world and universe.

If this absolute and objective God, the very source of reality and the rules that exist within it, if he is as the Torah describes, then how can one justifiably place he who created the limits under those same limits? A person can not force the One who created time and thus is outside of its influences into the confines of time. A person cannot judge the God who is not limited by space as if he were a certain size. How can the Person who owns all because he created all be charged with theft? He can only loan parts of his property to people who are also his property, so it never leaves his hand. Everything is in him (metaphorically) and there is no outside, no other. How can the God to whom all life belongs be guilty of murder? He took nothing that wasn’t already his.

So here’s the big one. How can the Source of morality, the one who actually makes objective morality possible, without whom objective morality is impossible, … wait, with what morality exactly could a person judge him? There is no command he gives where he commands himself to do or refrain from something. (Is it possible for someone to be above himself to command himself?) He gives his objective morality to an otherwise subjective creation. He is not under humans for us to command him. The creator is not beneath or under the power of his creation. So the notion of him being under human morality is preposterous. And he didn’t command himself.

So since it is nonsense to judge the author and substance of objective morality immoral, the only way to judge God is for him not to be the God described in Torah. Only then he can be under someone to judge, under a morality with which to impeach him. But then it wouldn’t be the God of Torah, so that’s irrelevant.

It should be noted as well that since God knows all things and in comparison … ha! Compared to God? That’s not a valid statement. Anyway, whereas God knows all things, human awareness is oh so limited, our perceptions coloured and biased. In light of that, it’s impossible to say to God in a real sense “such and such is unfair.”

So, to reiterate, people have to do the backwards thing: they must first reject him as God and then judge him. But then, as I’ve said, they’re not judging him but something not him.

Next point. In order to judge God, he must be subject to or below someone else. The thing superior to God to judge him, the thing or person judging God, would be the true God. But normally when atheists and God-rejectors judge God, they normally do it under their own morality, their own interpretation of that morality or the morality of another group of humans that they accept: God has to be subordinate to their own judgement!

Do you get what I’m driving at?

Let me put it in other terms. The God-rejector must make himself a god to judge God. That’s why the following insight is so true.

The atheist, too, has a god, and it is himself.

The idolater at least understands there is something greater than him, something beyond the grasp of his physical senses, some external forces to which he is subject.

But for the atheist, all the universe is defined by his own understanding, all ethics are subject to his approval, and even he himself is an artifact of his own mind. He is a self-made man, for he creates his own universe and squeezes himself inside it. (“The Atheist – Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson,” compiled and condensed by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/147754/jewish/The-Atheist.htm)

Remember, a person has to reject God first before they judge him. If a person doesn’t reject God first and yet feels the “moral” compulsion to judge his world and his deed, then that person becomes the highest authority, the judge and superior of God, therefore a god.

But then again, even if he does reject God, he’s still making his judgement the ultimate authority, therefore, the above insight still applies.

So that’s two points: first, a person must reject who God is before they judge him; and secondly, that person sets himself or herself as the higher authority, and therefore as a god, to judge God. Both of these points show some of the rank stupidity or screwed up thinking that must occur for a God-rejector to condemn God as immoral. They cannot properly judge the Torah because they’ve already rejected what it says; and then they raise themselves to a level that is ridiculous for humans. The next point will further explain the futility of their stance.

The morality of one who rejects God, by its very nature, is subjective and hence has no objectivity to it, no justification to change one’s own worldview as it is limited to the brain of the person making the conclusions. That’s the result of rejecting the only source of objective truth.

That atheist, Dillahunty, in that same debate, claimed to stand for objective or absolute truth. Yet look at the untenable or baseless position he finds himself in! Without the absolute, transcendant and therefore objective God, he is lost in a sea of subjectivity. The moral statements he makes are simply a by-product of his slightly more “evolved” simian (ape) brain. His agreement or disagreement to anything is simply his personal fizz of matter and energy, his DNA and brain chemistry. It has no bearing on anyone else. It’s just his individual flawed perception. Even his claim to supporting objective truth is subjective, only relevant to him, no one else need have any compulsion to think he’s said anything of any worth. Without God, there is no “out” of this situation. His worldview gives him no out. Even if he or anyone like him should try to formulate a statement to contradict this point, just the very formation of the idea in his brain-mass inevitably finds itself in the realm of subjectivity.

That’s the way it is for God-rejectors.

So think about this with me! How can such a subjective blob of supposed differently arranged pond scum even hope to shake a fist at the transcendent source of objective truth and morality and judge that source to be guilty? What leg does it have to stand on? None whatsoever! None whatsoever! (Yes, I said it twice.) This pond scum has to steal the concept of objective morality from the Deity in order to pretend there is something to measure God and his acts up against.

Do you see the impudence? The God-rejector uses the life, strength, will, energy, air, and the possibility of making rules of morality, everything, all of which was given to him by his Creator, he uses all that to condemn the Creator? This isn’t about gratitude or the lack thereof. This is about the total lack of grounding for his own position. He can’t even give himself life yet, his mind is so limited, yet he has the nerve, the pomp, to make God out to be the criminal?!?!? He couldn’t even have his anti-God stance without God!!!

So let’s conclude this part.

The person who rejects God and claims to use a standard of morality to judge him to be guilty and evil does a number of retarded things.

1) He (or she) rejects God as the way the Torah describes him first! And then they attack the straw-man. If God is the one who sets up the rules for his creation, his possession, then there is no meaningful justification for using another morality, since there is no other objective morality.

2) The one who condemns God puts himself or herself above God, as the judge of the Judge. Therefore, they make themselves the highest or higher authority, i.e., a god. The arrogance, the delusional pride, of the position is astounding.

3) The morality of the God-rejector is inevitably subjective, it can only be that person’s flawed opinion based on limited information and perception. Such a morality is nothing and counts as worthless when speaking about objective morality. Opinion is nothing in relation to facts unless they agree with the facts. Subjective morality is nothing in relation to objective morality unless the subjective agrees with the objective.

The God-rejector does not have a worldview that can account for objective morals. So it has no chance at all.

In the next part, I’ll stay with morality and give examples of the God-rejector’s accusations against God and show why they either show utter ignorance of the Jewish Bible and Torah or hold no water at all due to the inherent weakness in the God-rejector’s stance.

I know this was long but I hope you can see the points I’m making.



  1. Morality is the product of advanced sociality — not the invention of religion. If one were to study the many species of sociality on earth, it would become evident the survival of said species rests with the use of sociality.

    To the knowledge within any writing or scripture, no argument these species were given scripture as moral guidance. Yet, the many animals on earth survive because of their well developed sociality.

    With respect to God being unbounded by the forces of nature he created, then why did God need to ask Noah to build an ark? Why not simply ask him to stay home and let the waters flood the world except his home — just like parting the red sea? To that, why save any of the animals? As a measure of displaying his almighty will, would it not be far more intelligent to simply say “I created all animals in only a day, I can do that again just to reaffirm my authority of this reality”.

    Being all knowing and even seeing the future as scripture claims, would it not be more intelligent to use this method over the highly critical idea of having all animals on earth traverse oceans in order to reach lands previously unobstructed before the flood? At least then none would question the need nor the carpentry skills of Noah in building an ark.

    To many, the concept of Noah’s ark and the earth being populated from just one family is a bit much. To that, if God is timeless and can see the future, explain just how a “perfect” angel became imperfect, and the first man as being “perfect” became imperfect? If either were corruptible, how could they claim perfection? Having any weakness (such as believing a snake over the truth of God – a real ‘big test’) would easily qualify as a design flaw.

    Corruption from the perception of perfection is understandable to some degree. But corruption from nothing but more perfection is a contradiction.

    Many do not reject god and then judge him — for this is as unintuitive as a perfect angel becoming the devil for no apparent reason. People judge god first, then find reason to reject him (cause and effect).

    Further, in today’s modern society, there’s a growing shift away from religion. As a result, people reject religion out of the inconvenience it asks of them. It’s not that people are rejecting god, it’s that they couldn’t care to adopt religion. Only the religious view these people as needing to be “saved” — pushing their beliefs on these people as though they have a right.

    Atheist have no god. Idolaters are people who surrender their critical faculties in favour of letting religious leaders tell them what to think. Thus, they subscribe to the idea that all the wonders of the universe are there because of god, and thus not needing any further investigation. To investigate would imply disbelief in god as the ultimate answer to those things not easily understood, and should be discouraged.

    To an atheist, all the universe is there to learn and understand from — irrespective of any possible ethical implication this might or might not represent.

    Most would care not to remember “reject god first before they judge him” for they too are aware of cause and effect. They understand full well to reject god is not done without reason. Hence, when you ask an atheist why they have rejected god, they have an answer. To that, ask a theist why they chose god and most will tell you they were raised in it. Later in life when they reject god, some will easily say they’ve outgrown it — “Religion is for babies who don’t know better.”

    The disbelief in god is not equivalent to placing oneself as a higher authority — that’s a narrow generalization — such a “stupid” statement is untenable for those who’ve never believed in religion at the very start.

    Speaking of subjectivity, religion is a social construct: by definition existing only by the subjective consensus of those who subscribe to it.

    “…Yet look at the untenable or baseless position he finds himself in! Without the absolute, transcendant and therefore objective God, he is lost in a sea of subjectivity.”

    What could this statement possibly mean? The rest of your argument is a subjective interpretation meant to demean some guy called Dillahunty. What are readers supposed to think in reading the lengthy attack on this person? You then offer the subjective assertion “That’s the way it is for God-rejectors.” Really? For real? You then go on to call this guy names — where is the objective reasoning in this article to say God-rejectors are subjective? Based on the evidence in this article, all that is offered is subjective on a galactic scale.

    Your article was long, but I stuck with it. I have surmised these points:
    • You feel human morality comes from scripture — ignorant to the function of sociality.
    • You propose people reject god for no reason and then judge him afterwards.
    • You attempt to play the philosophy card, but fail to offer anything philosophical.
    • You take the postulation by Dillahunty as the basis of your article — as a complete non-sequitur.
    • You claim the arguments offered as contrary to the existence of god the result of “such a lack of truth, from such a lack of consistency that to even give them the time of time, to take them seriously is both laughable and disheartening” and then offer no evidence to support these derogatory claims.
    • You claim god created the laws of the universe and is thus exempt from any evidence critical of his existence – but employs physical methods to problems in the most unintelligent way possible.
    • When you say “Next point” you really mean “more of the same point”.
    • You claim atheists proceed on subjectivity while writing an article buried in it.
    • You offer sweeping generalizations and hardened assertions without any reference or evidence.
    • Your “objective view” is filled with name-calling, and attack those you are critical of.
    • You have a grade 5 grasp of grammar and a grade 9 grasp of spelling.

    • You chose to read my article and use your time to construct a response. I want to respect that by giving a response of my own. You didn’t give your response simply to agree with me which is good. I’ll give you that same respect. I’m not going to cover every statement because there’s no point.

      1) You surmised that Dillahunty was the basis of my article. He wasn’t. Now I mentioned him a number of times not as a basis but as an example, just as I mentioned Larken Rose. As the author of the article, I’m telling you this. If you say “well you could have done x or you should have done y,” then my simple response will be “Well I didn’t.” With no anger, that will be the end of that.

      2) I looked through my article again trying to find out how it was “filled with name-calling.” I was looking for the heap loads of insults and names that splattered each and every paragragh for it to be “filled with” such names. “his slightly more “evolved” simian (ape) brain.” “a subjective blob of supposed differently arranged pond scum.” These are the only things I could see as “calling him names.” *chuckle* These weren’t personal. Based on the general speculation or story of the naturalistic origin and development of the diversity of life, that’s what any human being is and what he has in his head. I’m NOT saying “Yo, Dillahunty, only you and you alone have this slighty advance monkey brain and only you are pond-scum.” (I did say simian as opposed to monkey, but hey, whatever.) I could have said “chemically shifted bacteria” or “land walking fish” or “demented physically rearranged amphibian.” It’s something that covers any human if based on that naturalistic theory. Wow, you took that a lot more personally that I would have imagined.

      Now this is in light what you said about “sweeping overgeneralizations.” I compared it to your paragraphs where you intimated that mainly atheists are supposed to be able to give a reason why they reject god whilst “religous people” mainly can only say they were raised in it. Again, I keep thinking “this is the guy that just accused me of making sweeping generalizations.” Maybe our experiences are different because what you described I’ve seen in both sets of people. I haven’t seen some inherent superiority in the atheist’s ability to articulate his reason for rejecting god as opposed to the theist who accepts him. Apparently you do. Subjective, huh?

      What about this? “To an atheist, all the universe is there to learn and understand from …” Sorry, what? Let’s use your definition. “An atheist has no god.” (not that I agree with your definition, but let’s run with it) The word is supposed is just the negative of “theist.” This doesn’t all of a sudden turn that individual into a student of the universe as if he’s on some noble quest. Wow, talking about deification or glorification. An atheist can be a lazy slob, a close-minded bigot, a worthless bum, just like a theist. Why? Because he’s simply an individual who does what he or she wants. Atheism doesn’t carry the automatic badge of “intrepid explorer for whom the universe lies in wait for as opposed to the dark-age-minded theist who just accepts things because mommy and daddy forced him.” Talk about sweeping generalizations.

      Anyway, all I’ve done so far is say “I’m doing what you’re doing.” But the difference is I’m actually quoting you or referring to specific paragraphs. I’m not simply saying “dude, you’re over-generalizing” and giving no evidence.

      Even when you seem to refer to “a narrow generalization” you don’t actually refer to my article again. I never said “disbelief in god is equivalent to placing oneself as a higher authority.” That is such a sloppy representation of what the article says I have to wonder what article you were reading. I said something akin to this: becoming the moral judge of God makes you the superior. Wow. Becoming the moral judge is nothing like simply disbelief.

      Look, it’s best that if you accuse someone of something, try not to be doing it yourself. This article was about those who judge god or God based on morality, not about simply being an atheist. Look at the context.

      3) “You claim god created the laws of the universe and is thus exempt from any evidence critical of his existence” – Please quote the place in my article where I made this EXACT point. I don’t want summaries or surmises or your interpretation. I want my exact wording where I said “God is exempt from any evidence critical of his existence.” Thanks.

      4) You claim that I said that people reject god for no reason. I didn’t say that.

      5) As you’re not the source of objective truth, I can’t accept the attempted truth claims you make. “Morality is this.” “Religion is that.” “Idolators do this.” “Atheists have no god.” That may be your subjective opinion. There are many opinions. My aim isn’t to change yours.

      6) My article wasn’t about religion. It was about God, those who reject him, and the morality argument. You keep referring to “religion,” something irrelevant to my article. Religion refers to so many views, atheism included (no, i’m not going to argue that point). If you’re using God and religion interchangeably, then again, that’s not what my article is about. If you want to lump me into the religious class using your subjective view of religion, then feel free, but I don’t have any reason to agree with your conclusion.

      In fact, for a lot of what you say, this is the crux of the matter. You may view my article the same way, but I see a lot of opinion, opinion that I’m sure you convinced of, but I don’t see anything to refute. You haven’t stated any objective truth, just stuff that you believe. “There’s a growing shift away from religion.” But what’s religion? (again, you gave your opinion, but there are many.) And where is this growing shift? Where in the world? How did you get such a statistic? Is the statistic the truth? Does it need interpretation? Are there statistics to counter it? The amount of times I hear atheists bring up statistics about one thing and then theists give contradictory statistics (in fact, this is true for many areas of life, not just religion, e.g., in politics) … I’m not asking these questions because I think you can give answers that are bound by truth. There’s nothing in what you’ve said makes me think you have any objective truth, just a lot of faith in yourself and your opinion. And people may say that about me. The main difference is that my worldview has a place for objective truth, where I can be wrong or right.

      If an atheist is coming to me with all that you’re saying, if you were an atheist or a person that rejects god or God, then you don’t really have much of a footing to try to contradict what I’m saying. To be consistent with such a worldview as atheism, you’d just be stating your opinion and I would be stating mine and there’s nothing much more to it. And I don’t want to just do that. I don’t want a lengthy debate about opinions. If there’s truth, then give it, but only if you have a objective standard of truth. If you’re just an atheist or a person who rejects God, then you don’t have that. And there’s little point in trying to discuss truth with a person who has a worldview that can’t even account for it.

      In fact, let’s do this to minimize the time either one of us has to take on this topic. If you choose to respond to this, do something first. State the standard you are using to give you truth claims. On what basis do you make those claims? Is your worldview atheistic or God-rejecting? Once you’ve given that standard, and if both can agree it is objective, then we can carry on the discussion. If you can’t do it, or you give a response that doesn’t contain an easy-to-understand description of that standard, then I’ll simply delete it, and the convo can end and we’ll go our separate ways. And no, I’m not asking. That’s gonna be the prerequisite for any future discussion on this topic.


  2. My apologies. I was’t able to distill the unique grammar of your response enough to understand the points you hoped to convey.

    You summarize my points that escape your grasp (for some reason), to that, I’m not sure I can simplify the meanings of my initial response any further. Please read over my response again.

    You state that your article wasn’t about religion — but of God. If that’s the case, tell me: Would God exist if religion didn’t?

    Lastly, if I don’t appear to fit your description of an atheist, then I don’t subscribe to your definition of an atheist. The material offered by scripture is of no relevance to modern society, for the bible is only a look into a society long extinct.

    You can sensor responses to your articles if you like, however, what would be the purpose of your articles if only filtered responses are allowed?

    All the answers you seek are in my initial response.

    • So, a few things. Based on your recent response, you made a number of baseless assertions. You did the same thing in your initial post. Seems to be a modus operandi so far.

      You claimed that I didn’t grasp your points. That’s an untruth as no part of my response stated this. Putting words in my mouth doesn’t mean I am saying those things; it means you’re making up strawmen.

      You initially made claims that I said things nowhere stated in my article. I asked for evidence and you supplied none. You didn’t discern the difference between asking for evidence and asking for clarification or simplification. Although your words have the air of aloofness, as if you were saying really complex things or things you believe to be beyond my grasp, I stated nothing about not being able to understand what you said. So if you’re referring me to your initial post then all you’re saying is that you wish to stand fast in erroneous and baseless statements. That’s not pointing me to answers, only showing the security you feel in your mistakes.

      Would God exist without religion? You haven’t stated your understanding of the word “religion” or how you are using it. The word “religion” is ambiguous.” So you haven’t asked me a question that would yield enough commonly understood meaning for me to give an adequate response. God’s existence is absolute and ours, that of the universe, is dependent. So God exists without the human assent to or acknowledgement of him. He exists regardless. We don’t need to exist at all. His existence isn’t dependent on us which is what is means to be absolute and objective.

      I haven’t given a description or definition of an atheist in this article. What I asked for was your standard of truth which you failed to provide. I don’t care if you don’t fit into something you think I have. You didn’t provide a standard with which we could continue with a meaningful conversation.

      Please note, this isn’t a debate page. There’s doesn’t need to be any area for a person to respond so there is no necessity to have unfiltered or filtered responses. This is the space allotted to me by wordpress to allow me to do what I want within their parameters. If I want to censor responses, that doesn’t magically remove the purpose of this blog because I never stated “this is a place for open and continuing debate which shall be unfiltered with regard to comments.” In fact, a lot of things, biological, economical and institutional (like the body, like schools, like libraries) thrive because they filter out harmful substances. Even law kinda filters out harmful people from society. So the fact I censor comments here in no way destroys the function or continuing existence of this blog. It can help it to thrive in that I don’t have to devote my time to debating with people who don’t promote, use or reveal a common objective standard upon which fruitful discussion can take place, for example. The fact that both your responses still exist here shows that it’s not as if I censor or delete absolutely all comments. The presence of your comments and those of others who disagree with me throughout this blog shows I don’t censor any and all disagreement.

      Ok, you supplied no objective standard. So there will be no point in continuing this any further. Thanks for your time. It has been enligtening but not in accordance to the subjective and erroneous thrust of your two previous responses. No objective standard provided. No continuing. Goodbye and, sincerely, all the best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: