If you bother to have rules for behavior, why not designate a single, ultimate ruler? Why not buttress your thinking by building a super-duper-supreme court, with only one chief gavel-whacker, in your mind? None of this vote-by-jury stuff. Humans are fallible. So put the responsibility for absolute justice up there in the clouds, where it belongs.
The almighty god of Christianity is no Sheriff Andy from Mayberry, RFD. He’s a cross between the biggest and baddest Judge Judy and an invisible parental chaperone. He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows when you’ve been jerking off, so be good for heaven’s sake.
Misbehave and no endless Christmas morning for you in the afterlife.
You buy that? I don’t. Which makes me a heretic. Watch out — I’m not afraid of getting coal in the stocking of my oblivion, I’m liable to do anything.
But really. It’s ridiculous to assume that belief in a gavel-whacking god automatically bestows upon individuals the ability to behave. Count the cross tattoos in prisons.
Okay, many don’t find their god/Jesus until they are incarcerated. Maybe he’s easier to locate when hemmed in by four walls, when the thought of escaping to heaven for the next life makes the pious pied-piper’s flute song more enticing.
But what’s the recidivism rate with the baritone commandments of the Big Daddy and/or the melodic promises of Jesus echoing in your ear? What is it when the freed criminal keeps repeating to himself, What would Jesus do? . . . What would Jesus do? . . . Nice set of wheels! . . . What would Jesus do? . . . Yo, check out the nuggets on that happy meal! . . . What would Jesus do? . . . You talking to me, you @$%^#*!!!
> Related Posts
Tags: atheism, Freethought Musings, god
June 30th, 2010 at 5:28 am
You say that
“If you bother to have rules for behavior, why not designate a single, ultimate ruler? ”
But this miscontrues the relationship between a rule and behaviour. It’s back to front in fact. The behaviour manifests or identifies the rules. The rules don’t amount or summate to the behaviour.
It’s odd to think that if, as you do, propose that rules DO manifest behaviour then, even if we are an atheist, we are subscribing to animism or spirits in nature, where “rules” have inherent intentions.
Your starting premise, that rules manifest behaviour (rather than behaviour manifests rules), advocates the very point you wish to argue against – spirits in nature.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:45 am
@John -
You have misunderstood me. A ruler makes explicit laws (rules) that can be broken, and when broken, result in punishment and penalty.
June 30th, 2010 at 7:58 am
You are saying that rule-makers are needed, but that we should not look for one rule-maker for all behaviours.
I am saying that rule-makers are not needed for any behaviours, and that a rule-maker is not a requirement of a Christian God.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:04 pm
You have missed my point.