patrick.net

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

What is the source of immorality?

I've already answered that question in detail and gave your reference works that go into even greater detail.

Try simplifying for those of us who work for a living Dan because I don't have time for your stupid books or videos. Where does immorality come from? Can you just give us like a one or even 4 sentence answer? Is it that hard?

Dan8267 says

You obviously read this since you are responding to that post and quoting it.

I did not watch the video or read the book but since you are the expert I am sure you can paraphrase for us. Where does immorality come from?

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

2. Therefore, your god did not create the universe. The universe was not created. It has existed since the beginning of time, whatever that is. This is by definition and therefore cannot be argued against. Time itself is part of the universe and therefore did not exist before the universe. Whether time or space are finite or contain boundaries is irrelevant.

Again prove it. Oh, that's right you can't. Its your opinion.

It is idiotic to claim that a clearly factual statement is an opinion. Whether or not your god created the universe or even exists is clearly not an opinion. The correct answer cannot vary from person to person.

You are boxed in by logic and thrashing out wildly because you know your captured.

Actually Dan you are boxed in by logic. You claim that the universe was not created and yet only observation can establish this hypothesis. Do you have an observer who can verify your hypothesis?

No you don't. You are making false claims about the origin of the universe.

Dan8267 says

Anyone who has this kind of reasoning should not be allowed to vote for the exact same reasons we don't let other mentally ill people vote.

Dan is advocating for removing Bible believers right to vote.

What where you saying is your moral code again?

Dan, in ancient Persian (long before the Islamic invasion), Savior is the same as Saoshyant ...

From the Easter thread:

https://patrick.net/1304995/2017-04-13-why-easter-is-called-easter-and-other-little-known-facts-about-the-holiday?c=1399802#comment-1399802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

And here's their version of the Book of Revelation ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frashokereti

Excerpt: "On earth, the Saoshyant will bring about a resurrection of the dead in the bodies they had before they died. This is followed by a last judgment through ordeal. The yazatas Airyaman and Atar will melt the metal in the hills and mountains, and the molten metal will then flow across the earth like a river. All mankind—both the living and the resurrected dead—will be required to wade through that river, but for the righteous (ashavan) it will seem to be a river of warm milk, while the wicked will be burned. The river will then flow down to hell, where it will annihilate Angra Mainyu and the last vestiges of wickedness in the universe.

The narrative continues with a projection of Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas solemnizing a final act of worship (yasna), and the preparation of parahaoma from "white haoma". The righteous will partake of the parahaoma, which will confer immortality upon them. Thereafter, humankind will become like the Amesha Spentas, living without food, without hunger or thirst, and without weapons (or possibility of bodily injury). The material substance of the bodies will be so light as to cast no shadow. All humanity will speak a single language and belong to a single nation without borders. All will share a single purpose and goal, joining with the divine for a perpetual exaltation of God's glory."

====

Sorry to say it but it looks like the editors of the Book of Revelation may be in violation of some prior ancient copyrights.

PeopleUnited says

WTF? your answer to the original question is paraphrased as:

Dan, what is your standard for morality?

Dan responds: Math, and I can do the math, but I'm not going to share the equation with you because you are a dummy.

...as well as too delusional to accept any reality that contradicts your religion.

But hey, ok, you want the math. Here's the math. Don't bitch to me when you don't understand it. And don't make the stupid claim that just because morality can be described in math, it cannot be taught to children. I'll tear you a new asshole if you make that predictable and stupid argument. If you want the non-math version read the book I linked to, The Moral Animal. I'm not going to transcribe the entire book here.

For more details, read this.

Most theory on the evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity is based on unconditional assessment. Evolutionary study on conditional assessment has started mainly by individual-based simulations, in which the corresponding assessment rule was named “us-TFT”34,35. In this paper, we fully analyze Staying, which is characterized by conditional assessment, and reveal that discriminators with Staying are more likely to invade the population of defectors than those with the four most prevailing social norms of indirect reciprocity10,37,38: Scoring19,20,39,40,41, Simple-standing1,21,22, Stern-judging3,37, and Shunning5,42 (Table 1). In mutual defection, within the population of defectors, either Simple-standing or Stern-judging leads defectors evaluated as bad to look good and then to exploit help from other discriminators. In contrast, under the Scoring or Shunning norm, discriminators are evaluated as bad as a result of interacting with defectors, leading to rejection by other discriminators; this is the main reason why the four social norms Scoring, Simple-standing, Stern-judging, and Shunning are unlikely to emerge. In contrast, Staying can leave the images of good discriminators and bad defectors intact; this enables discriminators to channel their cooperation and subvert the stalemate of mutual defection even with a small perturbation of the population state (which is on the order of assessment errors; see eq. (2)).

This is what adults read, not some silly story about a giant boat full of animals.

Dan8267 says

This is what adults read, not some silly story about a giant boat full of animals.

Dan, it's a lot easier than making a lot of speeches.

Paul of Tarsus, the psychotic delusional man that he was, since he'd never met Jesus in the flesh, but merely had a vision after a nervous breakdown on the road to Damascus, lifted a lot of Zoroastrian (or Anatolian Mitharic) motifs, to sell his version of spiritual reality, to the masses in Greek-Anatolia (eastern section) and the rest of the Latin empire.

Rin says

Sorry to say it but it looks like the editors of the Book of Revelation may be in violation of some prior ancient copyrights.

The entire Jewish and Christian mythology has ripped off many sources over the millennia. There were lots of flood myths, lots of god sacrificing their son myths, and other monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism before Judeo-Christianity. Mohamed wasn't the only plagiarist ripping off prior content. The Christmas tree comes from pagan festivals as does Jesus's alleged birthday, the Winter Solstice. The virgin birth is also a rip off of older myths.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Anyone who has this kind of reasoning should not be allowed to vote for the exact same reasons we don't let other mentally ill people vote.

Dan is advocating for removing Bible believers right to vote.

What where you saying is your moral code again?

Letting crazy people vote in other crazy people to key positions of power that leads to the entire destruction of the human race through nuclear war or ecological collapse is not the moral high ground.

PeopleUnited says

Actually Jesus bore not only the torture of the cross, but also the torment of leaving heaven and living as a human being for 33 years (it was beneath Him to lower Himself to our level and take on flesh, to feel pain, to know hunger, He never had to do that in Heaven but He was willing to endure this torment for us) and then was unjustly tried and convicted, sentenced to death without cause. He never sinned and yet he was found guilty

Considering that he was alive for 1 billion years, prior to a mere 33 yr imprisonment in the flesh, is nothing for a true spiritual master. If anything, he should have been grateful to realize what it was like to be a mere mortal, for such a brief period of time.

33/1,000,000,000 is 0.000000033 of one's existence. For you and me, that's like the experience of being stung by a bee in the fourth grade. Plus, Jesus could master the nervous system and thus, administer a psychic morphine to block all pain receptors. Yes, if he were who you say he was, that would have been cakewalk for him.

Dan8267 says

This is what adults read, not some silly story about a giant boat full of animals.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. So basically your morality can only be described with esoteric language that is incomprehensible to whales, whom you claim to be sentient beings. It is genius. Thanks for the non-explanation.

But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?

A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?

A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?

A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?

A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?

PeopleUnited says

Try simplifying for those of us who work for a living Dan because I don't have time for your stupid books or videos.

If you have time for the Bible, the stupidest book of all, and clearly you do, then you have time for real books and videos. You asked to an explanation of how I view morality and I gave you the most accurate and concise answer I can. If you want me to explain the subject matter to you, it's going to be a lot more difficult than reading one of those books or watching a video. I write as an engineer, not as a popularizer of science.

Of course you don't care about the work done in understanding morality with science. You seek only to discredit the competition no matter how superior it is to your lies and superstitions. I cannot teach you what you refuse to learn. Any child could learn the science of morality on his own. All he needs is an Internet connection and curiosity. You lack the latter.

PeopleUnited says

But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?

A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?

A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?

A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?

A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?

If you need your false god to answer any of the above questions, then you are fucked up.

Dan8267 says

Any child could learn the science of morality on his own.

Great, then talk to me like I was a child.
Dan8267 says

But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?

A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?

A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?

A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?

A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?

Which of these actions is moral?

What caused the immoral actions to happen?

PeopleUnited says

Great, then talk to me like I was a child.

OK, I'll play your stupid game. You think you are going to trap me, but I'm going to humiliate you yet again.

"But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?"

No, but dogs are not as sentient as humans and are not as emotionally mature. They cannot be held to the same standards. Dogs are like toddlers that never grow up.

And there are far more shocking examples of how canine instinct can cause a horrible event. There was a documentary that showed wild dogs in a pack playfighting with a few very young pups. The pups got injured to the point where the older dog's predatory instinct was triggered and the play fight turned into a hunt. The pups were killed. There is no magic border between living and non-living, between sentient and non-sentient, between intelligent and mindless. The universe is fuzzy, like it or not. The universe is under no obligation to fit in your arbitrary boundaries and categories.

"A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?"

If the man being killed had his will violated, then no. That is implied in your statement, but I'm sure you are planning some dumb twist. By the way, if you introduce new information that materially changes what I envisioned you meant, then it is perfectly fair game for me to change my answer. That is not a contradiction.

"A female sea lion will sometimes kill her offspring. Is this moral?"

It depends on the reason. If it is the lesser of two evils, then it is unfortunate but moral. If the pup were to die because of disease, birth defect, or insufficient food, then yes. However, I doubt the sea lion is thinking about the options like a human would. It is acting on instinct and nature itself is amoral. Evolution creates creatures that in turn make moral codes, but not all creatures and not all animal behavior is driven by morality. That does not mean that social animals are devoid of morality. Life is fuzzy. Get use to it.

"A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?"

Again, without context, I cannot make a judgement. Was it intentional? What is the intent? Intent is what matters, not consequences, when it comes to morality.

"A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull, you know rape her. Is that moral?"

Depends on the nature of the species. In humans rape is immoral because it creates psychological harm. In other species the females may have instinct to demand that males rape them as a kind of fitness test. Immorality comes from committing harm either intentionally or out of apathy. What constitutes harm can vary greatly from species to species.

"A man takes advantage of a drunk co-ed. Is that moral?"

This question is way to vague to answer. The fact is that human beings absolutely do use alcohol to further social and sexual rituals. This may be stupid, but it is reality. I'd have to know exactly what was going on in the man's mind to make any kind of determinate about whether or not his decisions were immoral.

Now your turn, unless you are too much of a coward to play your own game. And I'm going to use real life examples.

Parents teach their children about the Christian afterlife. That myth is a lie, but children are hard-wired by evolution to trust their parents implicitly, so they completely accept the lie as the truth. A father dies. His daughter longs to see him again and believes that he is in heaven and she will see him there is she dies. So she kills herself. This actually happened. Is it moral for parents to teach their children the lie of the Christian afterlife?

Various Christian churches have throughout history committed the worst atrocities imaginable including genocide, slavery, infanticide, torture, and rape. Is it moral to preserve and defend these institutions?

Christianity promotes lies about the existence of an unerring moral authority in order to control the behavior of the masses. Is it moral to tell such a lie to manipulative people? Is it moral to stop debate and discussion of morality by insisting that it is set in stone by some authority that does not even exist?

Man-made climate change is real, happening now, and dangerous. A multitude of scientific evidence from around the world proves this beyond any doubt. For this question, accept this premise regardless of your feelings. Is it moral to deny that man-made climate change is real?

Is it moral for a god to wipe out countless innocent animals in a flood?

Is it moral for a god to allow any being to suffer an eternity in hell?

I know you're going to pussy out on these questions.

Dan8267 says

"A man kills another man just to watch him die. Is that moral?"

In Reno?Dan8267 says

"A mother in Kentucky drives the car into the lake with her two young children in the back. Is that moral?"

I think it was one of the Carolinas, but some crazy bitch did just that and blamed an invisible black man. Even though her own family and ex-husband were willing to take the kids, she was banging the big shot in town and wanted him to commit to her, so she 'decided' to become childless to make herself more marriagable material.

It's the dark side of ape programming taking over.

Dan8267 says

my dog killed two of my chickens

It's also probably how they survived in the wild before they were domesticated.

Dan8267 says

A male bull will sometimes force himself on a female bull

She can also walk out from under him letting him fall and break his back. My rancher cousin has had to put down more than a couple because of that. Like Judge Millyan says, they're animals behaving as animals, they don't live by a moral code. What does this have to do with Islamic terrorism?

Rin says

PeopleUnited says

Actually Jesus bore not only the torture of the cross, but also the torment of leaving heaven and living as a human being for 33 years (it was beneath Him to lower Himself to our level and take on flesh, to feel pain, to know hunger, He never had to do that in Heaven but He was willing to endure this torment for us) and then was unjustly tried and convicted, sentenced to death without cause. He never sinned and yet he was found guilty

Considering that he was alive for 1 billion years, prior to a mere 33 yr imprisonment in the flesh, is nothing for a true spiritual master. If anything, he should have been grateful to realize what it was like to be a mere mortal, for such a brief period of time.

If earth was so bad, why did he come back after 3 days?

www.youtube.com/embed/yZ-iq_dpi9A

Chick out Riley's original piece - quoted in the beginning of the above video and linked in the description - goes on to LAUD the Iranians for providing "Free Sex Changes" and Blames the Media for portraying Muslims as anti-gay. He really is one ignorant SJW. hahahahahahaha

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Riley's...

an idiot. He mentions Leviticus without noting that Israel has gay pride parades, nobody gets stoned to death. He tries to equate Christianity and Islam, without noting 100% of the countries that recognize marriage equality have Christian majorities, while zero countries with Muslim majorities even allow gay couples to live together openly without fear of prosecution. He obsesses over reported "hate crimes" against Muslims (most of which turn out to be fake news) but ignores that Muslims have killed thousands of Americans in the name of Islam, which commands believers to do what they did.

P N Dr Lo R says

they're animals behaving as animals, they don't live by a moral code.

Actually there is ample scientific evidence that most, if not all, social animals have some kind of moral code passed on genetically. It makes perfect sense, too, as morality is a survival strategy. Without cooperation, the herd is killed.

However, the degree and nature of that morality can differ vastly from human morality. The underlying mathematics though is the same.

Dan8267 says

Be a murderer and believe in Jesus and he'll forgive your sins and you'll go to heaven.

You clearly have not gone to church, because what you said is not how it works. What you said, can only be said by someone who truly has no idea, but probably heard something somewhere. You are just bad at this Dan.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Be a murderer and believe in Jesus and he'll forgive your sins and you'll go to heaven.

You clearly have not gone to church, because what you said is not how it works. What you said, can only be said by someone who truly has no idea, but probably heard something somewhere. You are just bad at this Dan.

No. That's what I hear all the time, too.
If you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, all your sins are forgiven, and you will go to heaven. I get asked all the time to accept Christ, before it's too late.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Be a murderer and believe in Jesus and he'll forgive your sins and you'll go to heaven.

You clearly have not gone to church, because what you said is not how it works. What you said, can only be said by someone who truly has no idea, but probably heard something somewhere. You are just bad at this Dan.

Bullshit. The Sacrament of Confession wipes away all sins including cardinal ones like murder. All you have to do is ask forgiveness and accept Jesus. Honey, I guarantee I know a hell of a lot more about Christianity than you do. I had to study it all through elementary, junior high, and high school. And it was Catholic. That's the most canonical of Christian religions. Nobody does dogma and detail like the Catholics.

If you try to debate me on Christian lore, history, and dogma, you'll lose every time. I aced practically every class I took including the religious ones.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. The Sacrament of Confession wipes away all sins including cardinal ones like murder. All you have to do is ask forgiveness and accept Jesus.

What if a priest, who has already accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, goes on to molest a couple of altar boys. Does he go to heaven or hell?

Dan8267 says

If you try to debate me on Christian lore, history, and dogma, you'll lose every time. I aced practically every class I took including the religious ones.

Fortwhine grew up Catholic too, but he was a lesser student, for reasons that should be obvious from his comments. I would love to know what "college" he claims to have attended, and whether he graduated.

Strategist says

Does he go to heaven or hell?

Whichever he does last decides the question. The Catholic church made vast fortunes this way, approaching lifelong sinners on their deathbeds, guilting them into donating everything to the church. They had to give everything. Thus, in addition to all their other sins, they disinherited their own children to save themselves. (BTW, some would argue Medicare does the same today, via different pretexts.)

Nothing on earth is more obviously unnatural than religion, but among current religions, Islam is the worst by far. Its apologists are literally going back to medieval times to find anything close. So, at best, its defenders call it medieval. Nobody else would consider that a compliment, but the apologists seem to intend it that way.

curious2 says

Nothing on earth is more obviously unnatural than religion, but among current religions, Islam is the worst by far. Its apologists are literally going back to medieval times to find anything close. So, at best, its defenders call it medieval. Nobody else would consider that a compliment, but the apologists seem intend it that way.

ThankYou for stating that. I could not agree more.
My question is.....what drives these apologists and defenders of Islam to stand up for Islam? It makes no sense to me.

Strategist says

what drives these apologists and defenders of Islam to stand up for Islam?

Deliberate disinformation campaigns, petrodollar baksheesh corrupting the MIC, deficit spending, and too many identitarian and emotional partisans refusing to read what Islam says and does before deciding what to say about it.

Strategist says

Rin says

PeopleUnited says

Actually Jesus bore not only the torture of the cross, but also the torment of leaving heaven and living as a human being for 33 years (it was beneath Him to lower Himself to our level and take on flesh, to feel pain, to know hunger, He never had to do that in Heaven but He was willing to endure this torment for us) and then was unjustly tried and convicted, sentenced to death without cause. He never sinned and yet he was found guilty

Considering that he was alive for 1 billion years, prior to a mere 33 yr imprisonment in the flesh, is nothing for a true spiritual master. If anything, he should have been grateful to realize what it was like to be a mere mortal, for such a brief period of time.

If earth was so bad, why did he come back after 3 days?

He had a promise to keep.

John 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Great, then talk to me like I was a child.

OK, I'll play your stupid game. You think you are going to trap me, but I'm going to humiliate you yet again.

Dan, I hope what I am about to say causes you to think. It may surprise you but I do not see our relationship as adversarial. I want to be your friend. If I see you on the street, I want to be able to smile and say good day sir. If you are in need of help (or vise versa) I want to be there to lend my assistance. I am not seeking to humiliate you even if that is your intention towards me. I asked about your understanding of morality because it reveals who you are. I don't believe I can win an argument with you (not because you are more intelligent than I am, though you may well be) because the moment one approaches debate in terms of winning or losing, you have already lost. If there is another person on the island you live on, it is best to be friends with them and find common ground. We have more in common than you realize and that is what I am trying to prove. Your clearly stated intention of humiliation of your fellow human being is irrational, possibly even immoral. And despite this, I still want to be your friend.

What you think is moral reveals a great deal about who you are. I am enjoying getting to know you. I am not a master of morality, but I, like you, I am a student wishing to learn. I want to know why everything happens the way it does, not just how it happens but why it happens.

I will first respond to your answers to my questions and then move on to answering yours.

Dan8267 says

"But as long as we are on the subject of animals, my dog killed two of my chickens. She didn't eat them, she killed them for sport. Is this moral?"

No, but dogs are not as sentient as humans and are not as emotionally mature. They cannot be held to the same standards. Dogs are like toddlers that never grow up.

Agreed, my dog is not accountable in terms of upholding morality. However, if my dog continued to kill chickens and/or became violent towards other living creatures I may need to take measures including potentially killing her to protect others. Therefore, killing is both ethical and unethical depending on the circumstances.

God has been accused of being unethical for killing or allowing people to be killed. The above proves that killing becomes necessary in a world where each individual is able to make their own choices. God gave us free will. He did not make us robots incapable of doing wrong. Like a father who lets his son out into the world rather than keeping him locked up in his room all day to protect him, God lets us explore and then chose to do wrong. People argue that it is unethical for God to allow suffering, but suffering is a consequence of sin. It would also be unethical for Him to keep us in restraints all day long (physically prevent us from sinning) so that we could not choose our own destiny as well. Now, if He did not offer a way out once we sinned, He would clearly be unethical. But He did offer a way out, and that way out is freely available to EVERY man woman and child, not just the ones who never did any of the big sins like rape and murder.

As a libertarian you know that the most important ideal is that every person should be able to make their own choice as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to make their own choices. God is a libertarian, (he is not a conservative who never lets anyone disobey). But he is also compassionate. He gives us the ability to sin, and yet he has the compassion to tell us not to sin. He tells us not to sin because He doesn't want us to suffer the consequences of sin. He doesn't want our sin to cause other people to suffer. And His compassion goes even further. Once we have sinned He was willing to take responsibility for our sin by laying it on Himself. He paid the penalty Himself. And He lets us chose if we want to pay the penalty ourselves, or to just let Him pay it for us. Again, he lets us chose. That is a good God. A libertarian God.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

One of the points I was trying to make with my questions for you regarding morality is that virtually every "evil" can also be viewed as good.

Lying is immoral, except when it isn't.

Example: A German farmer was hiding Christian/Jewish refugees in his attic and the S.S. officer showed up asking questions about it, was it ethical to lie or tell the truth?Clearly the lie is the ethical choice.

Example: A woman wants to find a man who will take care of her for the rest of her life. A man wants to have sex with the woman and then go home and never see her again. He tells the woman that he loves her and wants to spend the rest of his life with her and she gets carried away with the ecstatic emotion of being "loved" and has sex with him. He goes home and never sees her again. Clearly lying was immoral because it defrauded the woman.

I only reiterate this point because people continually accuse God of being immoral because sometimes He forbids/condemns actions that he later does/condones and vice versa. We need to keep in mind that circumstances are always relevant. Before you judge God to be immoral, consider that He may know more than you and therefore you may not understand the circumstances.

Dan8267 says

In humans rape is immoral because it creates psychological harm.

Dan8267 says

I'm going to humiliate you yet again.

Dan8267 says

Immorality comes from committing harm either intentionally or out of apathy.

It would seem that you have a problem abiding by your own set of morals. I say this not because I think your intention is evil, but to again prove the point that circumstances are important -for no doubt you have an argument that your attempt to humiliate me is for the greater good ;)

Dan8267 says

A father dies. His daughter longs to see him again and believes that he is in heaven and she will see him there is she dies. So she kills herself. This actually happened. Is it moral for parents to teach their children the lie of the Christian afterlife?

I could just as easily rephrase the question with a Christian bent. "Is it moral for atheists to teach their children the lie that there is no Heaven or hell?

However, I did not color my questions with disputed "facts". Your tactic is deception/prejudice such as asking: When did you stop beating your wife?
Your question is invalid. A valid question would be who is to blame for the child's death? So I will play this hypothetical with you even though it is speculation on our part to try to assess blame.

Possible culprit #1 God. I know you don't believe in Him so it doesn't matter what I say about Him. However I do know Him and He values every human life and does not promote suicide as the answer to human suffering.

Possible culprit #2 the child. However I don't know her age so it is difficult to say if she was capable of making a rational decision. Furthermore, in her state of grief it is likely that she was NOT capable of making a rational decision, in which case there is no one to blame.

Possible culprit #3 the parents/religion. If anyone had expressly told the child that God wanted her to commit suicide so that she could see her dad again we would have reason to asses blame. As far as I know that is not the case. We know that you want to blame the parents/religion. The only way to convict the parents is by calling faith a lie and making faith illegal. That is a slippery slope, but that would be the conservative thing to do.

Possiblity #4 there is no culprit. The child died due to a grief motivated irrational decision. At the very least believing that God wants you to relieve your grief by committing suicide is a misunderstanding of Him and His will. Suicide is irrational.

At this point I am leaning towards #4. How about you?

But that brings up another question for you Dan. Where does irrationality come from? What is the source of irrational behavior?

May Jesus, the force, or whatever else you want to be with you, be with you. I gotta go for now.

PeopleUnited says

It may surprise you but I do not see our relationship as adversarial.

We don't have a relationship. Who advocates a lie is irrelevant to the fact that it is a lie. The messenger is irrelevant. What matters is reality, and reality is that
- your god is false
- your religion has done far more evil than good
- faith is intrinsically bad regardless of the arbitrary mythology underneath it.

PeopleUnited says

I am a student wishing to learn.

One cannot learn morality if one bases his understanding on lies and some fake unquestionable authority figure. To learn any domain, you must accept reality for what it is regardless of how much you want it to be different. Then you must study the domain as a science. Nothing less will yield wisdom.

PeopleUnited says

God has been accused of being unethical for killing or allowing people to be killed. The above proves that killing becomes necessary in a world where each individual is able to make their own choices

Your god is allegedly all-powerful and can simply will reality to his desires. It would NEVER be necessary for such a god to kill anyone, especially infants. No all-powerful being needs to murder the first born of an entire nation to set people free from slavery. He could just teleport the slaves to a new land and temporarily paralyze any soldiers or heads of state that pursued the slaves. Mass infanticide and horribly drowning soldiers ordered to pursue slaves is not necessary and certainly not moral.

PeopleUnited says

As a libertarian you know

I'm not a libertarian. I'm a liberal.

PeopleUnited says

God is a libertarian, (he is not a conservative who never lets anyone disobey).

Bullshit. Neither Libertarians nor Liberals would torture a person for all eternity if that person exercised their freedom to make a choice he didn't agree with. That's some fucked up shit.

PeopleUnited says

Lying is immoral, except when it isn't.

Obviously deception can be justified if it prevents a greater evil. I've already addressed this multiple times. The idea that lying to the masses about the existence of a god and afterlife can be used to manipulate those masses into behaving better is the Noble Lie Hypothesis (TM).

The Noble Lie Hypothesis is simply wrong. It is wrong in general because a lie told, not to a few individuals, but to the entire world ultimately will
1. Cause unintended consequences that outweigh the intended gain.
2. Pervert the original intent twisting it into something that motivates people to do great evil.
3. Will be seen through by the most powerful and dangerous individuals who will pay lip service to the lie but act in opposition to the intent.
4. Will cause the creation of other great lies that also cause great evil.
5. Will prevent a truthful and stable solution to the original problem trying to be solved.

The lie of Christianity empirically resulted in all five of these consequences. Is
1. Caused genocide, slavery, infanticide, torture, war, and many other atrocities. It also held back scientific and technological advancement that would have saved billions of lives of the past 2000 years and greatly diminished suffering. Hell, just child births deaths alone outweigh all the good that the lie was intended to create. Before science, childbirth deaths were the norm, not the exception.
2. Christianity has been used to justify all the evils listed in example one as well as many others.
3. Just look at how state officials have used Christianity to further the evilest of plots. Even noble lies are more easy to corrupt and twist than the truth.
4. From "God hate fags" to "God is on our side" to burning heretics at the stake, so much evil policy and practice has stemmed from Christianity in particular.
5. Christianity has done nothing but hold back morality as I explained in many examples such as enslaving and slaughtering whales, which are clearly sentient beings.

PeopleUnited says

We need to keep in mind that circumstances are always relevant.

I hate to break this to you, but one of the great motivations of monotheists is to make morality absolute and unquestionable irregardless of situation. This is why they insist there has to be a god, and more importantly, only one god. If you had multiple gods, then those gods could disagree, and that would kill morality.

Why the hell should anyone who accepts the Christian god reject all other possible gods? Because acceptance of the mere possibility of other gods would end the monopoly on moral authority.

This is the great hypocrisy of all monotheistic religions.

If you reject all other gods, then why should I accept yours?

PeopleUnited says

I could just as easily rephrase the question with a Christian bent. "Is it moral for atheists to teach their children the lie that there is no Heaven or hell?

1. It is not a lie. The lie is that heaven and hell exist.

If the Christian afterlife were not a lie, then the girl who killed herself would have been wise to do so and it would not be a tragedy. Furthermore, the most moral thing you could do would be to kill babies before they could sin. That way, they are guaranteed eternal happiness in heaven. To allow babies to live would be the greatest evil as you would literally be placing their souls in danger or eternal damnation.

2. It is absolutely moral to teach children that the afterlife is a lie. Really, you shouldn't have to teach them that and wouldn't have to if the lie were not so prevalent in our society. But keeping children from being brainwashed into believing falsehoods on which they might base critical life decisions, is definitely moral.

PeopleUnited says

However, I did not color my questions with disputed "facts".

What a racist statement! You have no problem disregarding every religious belief from Islam to Hindi to Buddhism to dozens of Native American religions to hundreds of African religions. However, the beliefs of your particular religion are "disputed facts"? No, they aren't.

There is absolutely no evidence or rational reason to think that any of your religion's myths are at all real. I could make up some story right now and call it a religious belief. That would not mean the story is something that should be taken seriously as a possible but disputed fact. Case in point: Scientology.

www.youtube.com/embed/FQ4-20wfzZs?start=180

Unless you give equal credibility to Scientology and the myths of every other religion in all of history, then you are a hypocrite. I will not give your religion's myths any more credibility then those. I will not have a separate standard for your religion than I have for any other one including Scientology.

PeopleUnited says

Possiblity #4 there is no culprit. The child died due to a grief motivated irrational decision. At the very least believing that God wants you to relieve your grief by committing suicide is a misunderstanding of Him and His will. Suicide is irrational.

At this point I am leaning towards #4. How about you?

The girl's act of killing herself would be completely rational, wise, and right if the Christian afterlife was not a complete and utter lie. If the Christian beliefs were actually correct, that girl would be happy in heaven with her father right now and the only tragedy in the story is that the mother did not also commit suicide.

Clearly, you do not believe this story had a happy ending. Therefore, deep down inside, you know the Christian afterlife is a lie.

PeopleUnited says

May Jesus, the force, or whatever else you want to be with you, be with you.

That would be the truth. It is the truth that is with us.