[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put another way: if such a god is itself immoral, and those who believe in it are immoral, then OP is himself immoral, since obviously he is electing to fulfill all sorts of other trivial wishes instead of fixing the plight of those starving African children despite clearly seeing the moral problems with such an approach. Such a stringent definition of morality seems uninteresting to me because nobody satisfies it and thus it loses meaning.

EDIT:

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is undeniably right. The internet (and this community in particular) just has a massive hard-on for attacking religion.

EDIT 2:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this is an appropriate analogy to my friend's belief, since there is a qualitative difference in your relation to your children and your relation to African orphans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should this distinction carry any moral weight? That's far from clear. If it should, what is the compelling argument that we should be treated as God's children, as opposed to just viewing that as a metaphor?