It's Okay to Kill Babies — If You're God

I thought this answer was quite appropriate, since God kills innocent children a number of times throughout the Bible:

If you’re a human and kill babies, you’re a monster. But if you’re a kind, loving, just god, then sometimes it is just the right thing to do.

Perhaps pro-life protestors should start protesting their god, since he’s the one who:

  1. Kills 1/4 of all potential humans through natural miscarriages
  2. Doesn’t stop or persuade women from having abortions
  3. Lets thousands of children die each day of starvation,
  4. Lets millions of children be physically abused by their family, and
  5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the Bible.

If a god exists, he/she/it is responsible for the death of more innocent children than all the most evil human beings combined. Why would this god be deserving of our worship and praise?

(via)

For Sale: Purity Ring, Slightly Used
Once you run out of ice giants ...
Atheist Dog Tricks
Romance at Mars Hill
  • zach

    It’s useless, there’s always some type of excuse from religious people.

  • reckoner71

    But Daniel,

    That was the OT god; when he came back, as himself, in the NT, he was feeling much better.

    “You called your book New, and said our book was Old. We’ve got a better book, with a better character, YOU’RE GONNA LOVE HIM!” – Lewis Black

  • trj

    I predict we’ll hear variations of the following excuses:

    1) We humans somehow brought it on ourselves
    2) God is unknowable and who are we to judge him?
    3) Heaven makes up for all the bad things happening to innocents.

    Have I forgotten any?

  • http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com Michael Caton

    There is right now a full court press in right wing talk radio about the stem cell issue. Basically it comes down to a) embryos are full humans, and b) they don’t help research anyway. I would assume the same message has been “cascaded” to evangelical church leaders as well (as we say in corporate America).

    b) above is my favorite, because why are scientists insisting on using stem cells then? Because they just can’t wait to kill babies? And why do companies insist on using them (putting the Bible against corporate profits is a fun rhetorical trick).

    And for a) – what is the proposed penalties for stem cell researchers? Why don’t we hear calls for their imprisonment for murder? Certainly if Obama told me I could kill people and then I went and did it, I would be more directly culpable than him. Good questions not to let them get past.

    http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/03/stem-cell-research-answers-for-tired.html

  • KILL [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]

    What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?

    [Admin note: I have confirmed this person is a theist poorly pretending to be an atheist. Good news, though. If he’s right about an afterlife, he’s going to hell for repeated deception. :) ]

  • DarkMatter

    I think we cannot lump judaism with christianity together to be fair.

    For those who are unfamiliar with judaism, you can listen to Rabbi Tovia Singer‘s mp3s and no, I don’t believe in judaism and I am not a Jew or an Isrealite.

    Rabbi Tovia Singer‘s mp3s:
    http://www.outreachjudaism.org/biblical.html

  • heroix

    I have an idea how christians can excuse! That baby killer is Allah! Anyone have questions?

  • http://www.fallenandflawed.com/ Demian Farnworth

    Okay, let’s say God doesn’t exist. If he doesn’t exist, nothing to praise or worship. Got it. Also, that means no. 5 is a fiction.

    Then, no. 1 is tough–if not impossible–to prevent. So you’re good there.

    That means you’re left with babies dying by abortion, starvation and abuse.

    I imagine someone might respond that abortion and starvation are natural ways to prevent overpopulation. [Great argument, as long as it’s not YOU who is starving, right?]

    Is there a current argument for NOT preventing child abuse? And do you really care about babies dying from abortion, starvation and abuse? Or do you just want to exploit their pain for your own purposes? Just curious.

  • http://blog.dc-agape.com dc-agape

    Demian,
    Let’s get back to the subject.

    If god does exist he does:

    1. Kills 1/4 of all potential humans through natural miscarriages
    2. Doesn’t stop or persuade women from having abortions
    3. Lets thousands of children die each day of starvation,
    4. Lets millions of children be physically abused by their family, and
    5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the Bible.

    Abortion is a woman’s choice…a tough choice but a required choice. Think about rape victims, teen pregnancy (due to poor sex ed) and births that risk the life of the mother.

    Starvation…instead of teaching proper sex ed, most of the children who are starving are born to parents who are taught by christians that birth control is evil.

    Physical abuse…again most of these cases are due to parents who were taught that birth control is evil. Or worse, that having children is acceptable to parents that are “straight” but have drug habits or are alcoholics. Hence, they have too many children for their financial situation and the children are the ones who are hurt by the condition.

    Starvation and abuse…Innocent children placed in horrible conditions by a loving god.

    Or, if god does not exist. Starvation and abuse…Innocent children placed in horrible conditions by the loving teaching of Christianity.

    Either case is pretty sickening. Population control is required. If sex ed is not allowed (and done properly), then abortion, starvation, and abuse are the outcome.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    Daniel “he/she/it” god would not have a gender. just say ‘the omnipotent being’ or you could use ‘3 distinct persons inside one omnipotent entity’ or even ‘a ball of pure energy’ or my favorite:

    ‘a vast, amoral, impersonal power, which nevertheless is Love.’

  • reckoner71

    Yesterday, someone cited the Ben Stein movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as a beacon of truth, so I thought I’d counter by watching Dogma.

    Apparently, God is Alanis Morissette, and cannot do a handstand.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Okay, I figured out what’s going on with “KILL/novice/makeup/c3PO.”. We assumed he was a theist in disguise. Guess what? We were right.

    Ends up this moron started out as “grass/TOM/aatheist/apl/Kyle” and some others. Here are a few of his first comments as a fundie Christian:

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23583

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23665

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23674

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/#comment-23676

    etc

    After realizing he wasn’t getting anywhere with his arguments, he tried to impersonate atheists under different names. He didn’t do a very good job.

    So to the commenter I say: Way to lie for Jesus! I’m sure you make your imaginary boyfriend proud.

    You are now banned.

  • latsot

    Oh come on Daniel, are you even *trying*? :)

    > 1. Kills 1/4 of all potential humans through natural
    > miscarriages

    Surely they are only potential children if god wants them to live. Otherwise every wasted opportunity to copulate would be a sin, every sperm and egg not resulting in a zygote would be murder. So obviously god has a plan and brings together the circumstances by which certain children survive, according to that plan. If a potential child is not in god’s plan, then obviously it is not a child, so god isn’t killing children here. Remember, god can see the future so he *knew* those children weren’t going to be born. If they weren’t going to be born anyway, how can he be accused of killing them, eh?

    > 2. Doesn’t stop or persuade women from having
    > abortions

    Ah but he does this through the anti-abortion people. It’s not god’s fault if women choose not to listen. After all, he gave us free will precisely so we could explain away apparent contradictions like this.

    > 3. Lets thousands of children die each day of starvation,

    But he preaches that everyone should be nice to each other (at least in the blockbuster best-selling sequel). This should be enough for everyone to come together and eliminate poverty. Again, it’s hardly *his* fault if people don’t do this, is it? What can an omnipotent being do if people refuse to listen to him?

    > 4. Lets millions of children be physically abused by their
    > family, and

    But you’ve got to put these things in context, Daniel. Their suffering is necessary because it makes them stronger and gives them even more reason to praise god. It develops their character. If we don’t know what suffering is, how can we work to eliminate suffering in others? Often by wiping them and their families from the face of the earth.

    > 5. Slaughtered innocent children numerous times in the
    > Bible.

    Yeah, but we’re talking about the original, which was widely panned by the critics. I refer you again to the blockbuster sequel, where god shows his gentle, meek and mild side. Of course, he also advocates all the rules he set down in the original, including those about brutalising your children at the drop of a hat, but he doesn’t go about smiting children as a hobby, so that’s an improvement, right?

  • huanghou

    Is this post for real? Seriously?

    First of all, I don’t understand why non-believers care so much about something that does not exist for them. Perhaps, they are not that sure about this and are trying to convince themselves that there is nothing beyond what they can touch or see.

    In any case, spiritual things, not just religious faith but also love or altruism, will never be explained from a scientific point of view. Somehow, spiritual and sienctific visions of the world are complementary. In addition, to demonstrate the non-existance of god is as impossible as to demonstrate the existance. Thus, both atheism and christianism (i.e.) are based on faith.

    As far as the post is concern, if God is culpable of all the bad stuff that it has been said, it is also responsible for all the good stuff that it has not been said. So complain about the bad things, but acknowlege the good things (i.e. about the good time and the laughs with your friends in the bar accusing God of crimes against humanity…).

    Seriously, it appeals to me the lack of rigour of such this post. Obviously, the religion as is understood and interpret today is not the final version of human being’s belief. Centuries ago, we believed in several human-like gods, now we believe in one almighty God,…undoubtly, we are seeking for answers. Science and faith have taken separated ways through the history. However, there is no answer without any of the two. Religion needs science to narrow the approach of faith in the correct direction. Science need faiths to fully understand the un-measurable parts of the Universe. I suggest everyone to read the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project).

  • DarkMatter

    Are you talking about harmony between christianity and atheism apart from killing babies?

  • boomSLANG

    @ VidLord,

    Correction on previous reply—yes, the lack of knowledge makes me an “agnostic” by default, however, again, I can still not harbor a belief in “God”, thus, making me an agnostic atheist.

  • Dave Olbrich

    If you are going to use a Zach Weiner cartoon from SATURDAY MORNING BREAKFAST CEREAL, the least you can do is give him the appropriate credit.

    Dave – Zach’s friend

    I would also recommend everyone here check out SMBC-COMICS.COM … always good for a laugh or three.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X