God drowns babies

drowning children

SCRIPTURE: “The longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” -1 Peter 3:20, KJV. [source]

QUOTE: God is the perfect example of a loving father. All too often, though, it’s another case of “Do as I say, not as I do.” But what do I know? I’m just another apostate.

36 Responses

    1. Are you saying that your opinion is that drowning babies is morally equivalent to not drowning babies? Or are you saying that people who do not believe in a god cannot claim that one is morally better than the other?

      1. I don’t think it is moral at all to hurt a baby! Sorry I wasn’t real clear on that.

        All I am saying is that without a deity there is no objective and transcendent right and wrong.

        What I am NOT saying is that you have to believe in a god to be good.

  1. Just wanted to add… I am a thiest (as you probably figured). I know many many athiest that are amazing people and do amazing things for humanity. I am also very good friends with many athiest/agnostics. I am in no way claiming that atheists are bad people. Often times they are more moral than those that claim a religion.

    I enjoy your site! Keep it up! Have a great holiday with your loved ones!

  2. So, essentially, Mrs. Yates did not do anything wrong by drowning 5 children? Wouldn’t that be staying true to a natural world view??

  3. I guess it depends upon your morals. If you believe that a natural world (i.e., one without a creator) requires its inhabitants to view all actions neutrally, then yes, I suppose in that context it could be said that there is nothing wrong with drowning 5 children. If you believe, instead, that morality can be determined by the effects of actions upon individuals, then I would have to say that in this case the drowning of those five children was a disturbing and immoral action.

    The intent of my post, however, is not to discuss the relative merits of various moral systems, but to suggest that the morality framework of Christianity, which is presumably the one in which the God of Christianity dwells, is one in which God finds himself a morally bankrupt actor. Few Christians, in my experience, like to think about such things.

  4. My point is that a natural world does not have an objective right or wrong, therefore morality is in the eyes of the beholder.

    The majority of society may feel an action is wrong, but our opinions do not make it wrong if there is nothing to objectively ground right or wrong in.

    You cannot tell someone the right way to play a game of chess if the game was never created with an instruction manual to ground the rules in.

    To take it a step further, in a natural world Andrea Yates did not actually choose to commit her horrendous crime, it was her DNA and random brain chemicals firing that made her do it… There is no free will in a natural world, therefore she didn’t actually choose to do it in the first place.

    I truly enjoy your site. If you are interested, try reading, “Is God a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan. It may clear up a few of your thoughts about the morality of God… Not to try to convince you to change your worldview, but maybe to help you better understand where a Christian thiest is coming from.

    1. I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to argue here. Are you explaining your beliefs, or are you attempting to tell me what mine are? If you feel a need to create a strawman with a system of beliefs that you feel you can defeat, I guess all I can say is congratulations on defeating that strawman.

      1. Here is my point.

        Your argument falls on it’s face from the get go… You use empty rhetoric to make a point by trying to claim God is immoral when there is no such thing.

          1. Again, your using morality as if it truly exists in a naturalistic world view… But we can roll with it since I believe objective morality exists.

            We are human beings and we have free will (in a theistic world view at least). We as humans are able to decide how we want to act, and are not simply dancing to the beat of our DNA as Dawkins puts it.

            Most natural disasters are a result of human mistakes. For example, if we were to love our neighbors as ourselves, we would not have the famines across the globe that we do today. We have enough food for everyone on this planet, yet the US and other privileged countries over consume and hoard all the food. What we should be doing is spreading it around the world and letting everyone have enough food to stay nourished.

            As for the flood, from an eternal perspective I am sure they would rather be with God than on this fallen earth.

            Also, as a side note, If God is the creator of something, is he not free to do with it as he wishes?

            To be honest, your questions are very good and very important for everyone to look into. I am afraid I could not do it near enough justice in a simple comment.

            If you are truly concerned about this, I would again recommend , “Is God a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan. You have my email, if you shoot me your address or a PO box I would be more than happy to buy it for you. My biggest concern to be honest is that once you learned the lies and deception of Mormonism, you dismissed Theism as a whole along with it.

          2. Let’s go ahead and assume for the purpose of this discussion that God exists and has created the world, since that is the framework in which Christianity wants to paint itself.

            How do we define an objective morality? Is God moral because he acts according to principles of objective morality? Or is God moral because he is God, regardless of objective morality? If an objective morality exists, then how can someone who does the same thing that God does be acting immorally?

            I did not dismiss Theism along with Mormonism. I took a good long look at Theism independently of Mormonism before I realized that all religions are equally baseless.

  5. “[To] all my Atheist friends.
    Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.
    We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.
    We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.
    I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”
    – See more at

  6. Before we move on, so I get where you are coming from, do you believe objective morality came from a mindless and blind accident? A simple yes or no is all I need.

  7. Couple things…

    1. I typically don’t do this online because it can drag out forever… I would much rather talk in person and build friendships. I also greatly respect and appreciate the tone in which we have been able to discuss things… Thanks!! It’s refreshing!!

    2. Anything objective has to be outside the subject… If we are an accident that will simply be demolished once the sun burns out; morality is based on the subjects opinion. ISIS believes chopping heads off is the right thing to do, and in a atheistic world view who are we to condemn them? Survival of the fittest right?? As long as we are getting our genes into the next generation all is good… That’s why Sam Harris does not condemn rape… It’s natural and extending our species. Dawkins knows there is no objective morality in an atheistic world view which is why he has mentioned us being aliens offspring to try to ground morality!

    3. Christianity is not a religion… It’s a relationship with Jesus Christ. Religion is working your way to God… Christianity is God coming down to save humanity through his ressurection.

    4. I have enjoyed our conversations, but have to call it quits for now. I would encourage you to look into the evidence for the ressurection and determine what happened to Jesus.

    1. The conversation doesn’t have to drag on forever. You seem to be trying to broaden the scope of the conversation by trying to compare Christian morality with other alternatives. Let’s just stick within the framework of Christian morality and see if it is internally consistent.

      If Christianity isn’t a religion, then I think we should lobby to exclude Christian churches from the exemption of paying taxes. Are you with me on that?

      Any time you want to pick up this conversation again, you know where to find me.

      1. For me, the discussion is simply morality from a thiest worldview compared to an atheistic worldview… Simple as that. If everything is accidental and blind, morality is simply a matter of opinion. Whatever the DNA and neurons in your body are telling you to do, you do. Right? I am still waiting for an answer to that from you.

        I could care less about taxes. The church is not the building, it’s the people. The people across the world make up the church. If you feel the need to lobby for that, go for it 🙂

  8. If you believe that morality is the same thing as instinct, then you are free to argue that. It’s not what I believe, and it’s not what Christianity professes to believe.

    But this page isn’t discussing atheistic morality. It is very explicitly discussing Christian morality. I’m not sure why you keep trying to avoid the subject. If Christian morality would claim that drowning babies is morally reprehensible, then I posit that the Christian god is a morally reprehensible character, since according to Christian myth, he drowned not only men, women, and children, but also babies and animals as well.

    (And not to get sidetracked on whether Christianity is a religion or not, but if the church isn’t the building but the people, then why do Christian faiths accept money from its members which they then spend on the buildings rather than on the poor, sick, and hungry? Are the organizations that do that merely the wayward incarnations of Christianity?)

  9. I don’t think you understand me. I am simply trying to crawl before we walk. We cannot talk about morality, until we can solidify morality exists.

    Again, I ask you, from an atheistic world view, where does morality come from?

    Unlike Mormonism, in orthodox Christianity the books are wide open to the people to see. The church members can see exactly where the money went. The church I attends feeds 75-85 families a day in our community.

    1. If God doesn’t exist, then he cannot be either moral or immoral. From an atheistic perspective, therefore, discussing God’s morality is a moot point. If you are going to cede the point on atheism, then our discussion is over before it had a chance to begin. If you want to discuss God’s morality, then we have to do it from within a framework in which he supposedly exists, which is Christianity.

      I love it when religious organizations do good. In answering, though, you sidestepped the question.

      1. It’s interesting you like when churches help others. Does that mean you think human life has value? From an atheistic worldview, why does life matter? I love that Bill Nye states he is simply a grain of sand, and that he sucks lol! I love that he is honest in his worldview. But doesn’t something in your soul tell you life matters? That is if your worldview holds to having a soul and not blind chemicals in motion providing an illusion making you think you are thinking. Did you willingly create these posts or are they a result of chemicals in motion.

        Since you seem to truly believe in an absolute right and wrong, let’s look at it.

        From an eternal perspective and Christian view, the innocent went immediately into the presence of God. From a natural worldview, they died and that’s it; but who cares? Life does not ultimately matter in a natural worldview. You may find personal meaning, but in the grand scheme of things it is truly meaningless.

        If you asked my daughter a day after she was born what type of dad I was, she would say I am sick, cruel, and abusive. Why? Because she was cut out of her moms stomach, submerged in a bath, pricked in the heel every two hours, slept alone in the nursery, and stayed in the NICU. From her small perspective we seemed horrible. From our perspective, it was completely necessary because of our love for her. If you ask her now, she probably does not remember any of it.

        And so I wouldn’t be surprised if it is similar with the flood. The innocent probably went to their loving father with no rememberance of things, and those that didn’t want God got eternal separation from him, which is what their free wills wanted.

        Again, this who discussion assumes there is a true right and wrong, an objective moral law if you will. It also assumes human lives have meaning. Do you believe they do? Do our lives matter more than that of a bird? One famous atheist explained we are no better than bananas lol. If they truly believe that, more power to them… At least they stay in the framework of their own worldview to make their case and not try to cherry pick from others to argue against them.

        1. Read my post again.. Sorry… I am on my phone … Everything in the example of my daughter was because she had a very dangerous birth. I was very close to losing her and my wife as well. Everything I mentioned was medically necessary 🙂 I love the kid with every ounce of my being.

          1. If the doctor or a nurse, rather than you, did those things to your daughter, would that doctor or nurse be labeled as cruel while you yourself would not be? Your analogy falls down when Andrea Yates is immoral for drowning her children but God is not immoral for drowning his.

  10. My point simply is if you are athiest, there is no way to talk morality because in that worldview it does not exist. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. You might have your own morals, your family might have particular morals, but to say one is objectively right and one is objectively wrong does not fit in the atheistic worldview.

    You are stealing a moral framework to argue against God. I am simply showing you that to stay consistent, you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to say God is immoral, you have to agree that there is an objective right and wrong. Is there one?

    I love the way Sam Harris puts it. He explains that our consciousness is simply an illusion. Makes me wonder if he was truly conscience when he said it.

    1. I am arguing from a single viewpoint: that of Christian morality. You are the one who is trying to have it both ways: a God that exists in what you term an “atheistic worldview.”

      You can argue about your perceived bankruptcies of an atheistic morality all you want, but that is not what we are discussing here. My point is that in the framework of Christian morality, in which there is a Christian god, all powerful, perfectly righteous, and unchanging, God performs acts that if performed by others would be called immoral. Christians somehow find a way to give him a free pass, presumably because their dogma insists that he can do no wrong.

      If your God can drown babies and they suddenly find themselves in the presence of God and are happy about that, then why can Andrea Yates not drown babies with the same result? Why do Christians maintain that Andrea Yates is immoral while God is not, when each perform the same action?

  11. This is why I avoid these rhetorical sites that have no substance behind their arguments.

    Here is my point, and I will leave it. Your picture says evil, and monster, making it as though she did something wrong. In order for there to be a wrong, there must be a right to differentiate it from. To differentiate right from wrong, you must have something to ground right and wrong in, like a moral law of right and wrong. Correct or incorrect? Please answer my question with a simple correct or incorrect… I have been waiting for that for quite some time. My point is to simply show you that you cannot accuse either God or Andrea as being immoral, bad, or whatever you want to label them.

    God is all knowing, Andrea Yates is not. God is eternal, Andrea Yates is not.
    God created life, Andrea Yates did not.
    God is above humans. Andrea is not.

    1. I don’t blame you for not wanting to argue this from a Christian perspective.

      So let’s argue it from an atheistic perspective. There is no God, therefore God cannot be immoral. Hooray! See? God isn’t bad after all!

      “God is all knowing…. God is eternal…. God created life…. God is above humans….” Only according to Christian mythology. If you have evidence to back up any of these claims, I am only too happy to consider it. If you cannot back up these claims, then please explain why the following claims are invalid: “The Mayan gods Kukulkán and Tepeu decided to preserve their legacy by creating mankind. In the first attempt they used mud, but the mud crumbled. Next they decided to make man from wood. However, since these men had no soul, they soon lost loyalty to their creators, so Kukulkán and Tepeu destroyed them by rain. In their third attempt, they hit upon the secret ingredient and fashioned man from maize.”

    1. I’m not going to debate morality as a separate issue with you. I don’t care that a Christian can’t figure out how atheists can possibly have morals. If you believe in morality in a Christian framework, then let’s use that as our basis for discussing God’s morality. If you don’t, then my work here is already done.

  12. Really?? I am not saying atheists cannot have morals… They most certainly can!! Most have great morals 🙂

    I am just asking how you know what bad is? Why can’t we talk about that? Isn’t right and wrong at the heart of the argument??

    So again, my question is simply this… How do we know what bad is?

    1. You seem to be unwilling to understand the point of my argument. Christian morality says what is good and what is bad. Then the God of Christianity does what Christian morality says is bad.

      If the only way to defend your God from his own morality is to approach morality from a perspective in which your God doesn’t exist, you have already lost the argument.

  13. I think your silence speaks louder than words could. You clearly cannot ground right and wrong. Thanks for making my point.

    1. Sigh. Once again, I’m not saying God is immoral according to the moral code of an atheist. That’s a ridiculous argument, since if we grant the conditions in which a moral code based on atheism is correct, then that precludes the existence of God from the start. What I am arguing is that God is immoral according to the Christian standards of morality.

      If you want to pretend that my refusal to discuss something unrelated to the topic at hand is because I cannot come up with morality (while at the same time you admit that atheists can and do have morals), then I can only respond: you are welcome to continue the conversation when you want to engage on the topic.

Leave a Reply