A problem with some religous views Part 2.

[chezlaw]

In this post I am going to assume the argument in A problem with some religous views is correct. I'd appreciate it if, for the purposes of trying to keep the thread coherent, that if you disagree with this argument then you respond to the original post.

Original claim
'consider the statement: "we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

If my moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant then at least one of the following is true:

I am being deceived by my moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken'



I'm now going to make two small steps. I had planned to just claim these were obvious but after being put through the wringer in the previous thread I shall make no such assumption.

Firstly:

The truth of the argument is independent of the statement. By that I mean any statement that caused me the moral repugnation would have done. So I can generalise the claim to.

Claim 1
'If my moral sense tells me that god as described by some religon is morally repugnant then at least one of the following is true:

I am being deceived by my moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken'


Secondly:

Any rational person, who considers the matter must believe logically sound arguments. so

claim 2
'Any rational person whose moral sense tells them that god as described by some religon is morally repugnant must believe that at least one of the following is true:

they are being deceived by their moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken

although they may not know which of the three to believe'


Do you all agree with claims 1. and 2. (some hope [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

If not why not?


chez