Religion is for the Morally weak?

[Oiwoy]

Hello All. I am new here, so a similar thread discussion might have been started.

Anyway, the argument starts as follows:

Those who need the threat of an afterlife of consequences in order to behave in an ethical way, are moraly weaker than those who do not.

[mud]

Hello All. I am new here, so a similar thread discussion might have been started.

Anyway, the argument starts as follows:

Those who need the threat of an afterlife of consequences in order to behave in an ethical way, are moraly weaker than those who do not.
Hi Oiway,I'm new here too.:)
As to your argument as stated, I think that as long as everyones morals were the same then it would be true. But we all have different morals, so I think that it's impossible to be 'morally' or 'ethically' inferior(or superior).I'm sure that in any given group of people you'd find both 'moral' folks and 'immoral' folks.

[LogicMan]

Hello All. I am new here, so a similar thread discussion might have been started.

Anyway, the argument starts as follows:

Those who need the threat of an afterlife of consequences in order to behave in an ethical way, are moraly weaker than those who do not.
Taken just as is you are correct

[CFett]

Any person who needs a threat of any kind in order to behaive in an ethical way should be put to death. Period. Atheists and theists alike.

[Amazonis]

Hello All. I am new here, so a similar thread discussion might have been started.

Anyway, the argument starts as follows:

Those who need the threat of an afterlife of consequences in order to behave in an ethical way, are moraly weaker than those who do not.
I totally agree. Anyone who neads the threat of eternal damnation to enforce morals is definately morally weak. (I have even had christians ask me why i don't just go around killing people if i don't beleive in god).

[thomas]

Well, there is a cosy set of agreements going on in here. But, hey, you don't think you're talking about Christianity do you ? You couldn't be that ignorant could you ? Could you ?

Just in case, let me remind you that Christianity does not believe that you escape eternal damnation by behaving in an ethical or moral way. Christianity believes that you escape eternal damnation by believing that Jesus was the Son of God, your saviour and by making Him your Lord. The moral behaviours dictated by the Bible are there for your benefit, not to catch you out.

And, at the risk of creating another long and circuitous thread, does anybody here want to define the standard by which moralities are judged as weak or strong relative to each other ?

[Amazonis]

Just in case, let me remind you that Christianity does not believe that you escape eternal damnation by behaving in an ethical or moral way. Christianity believes that you escape eternal damnation by believing that Jesus was the Son of God, your saviour and by making Him your Lord. The moral behaviours dictated by the Bible are there for your benefit, not to catch you out.
Well that is not what many christians have told me, in relation to their morals. I have being told by many christians that i will burn in hell for my sins. You say that christians must think Jeebus is their lord to avoid damnation, however some christians have told me that if i sin i will be damned. Obviously there are difering views within christianity on this matter. However you seam to have chosen the easier option. Your lucky that you can do whatever the fuck you want, and as long as you still love Jeebus you will go to heaven. Isn't that conveniant? :)

[thomas]

I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying to you. Christians believe that all people fail to meet Gods standard and therefore can't come into God's presence on their own merit. They further believe that the only way to solve that problem is through the redemption offered by Jesus, not by moral behaviour. All Christians believe this.

Where Christians disagree is over the required behaviour of Christians. Some say that good moral behaviour is a part of the deal and lack of it puts in peril your status as a Christian. Others ( including myself ) say that moral behaviour is commanded by Jesus and want to act that way in gratitude for what He has done for us, but that its not required for salvation. I think the effect on behaviour is similar.

Loving Jesus and "doing what the fuck you want" turn out to be incompatible states of mind in my experience.

[HeWhoAsks]

Christians believe that all people fail to meet Gods standard
Surely someone more wise than me has commented earlier on the deep pessimism and cynicism of this view of Xtianity.

Right off the bat, with no discussion, no chance of qualification, or modification, or argument, in the most absolutist way imaginable, Xtianity says "You're a shit." What a nice sentiment, what great support, what a caring, loving idea. This is the idea with which I want to be friendly. NOT! This approach doesn't even give you the *chance* of trying and then failing. No, even before trying, you're doomed to fail. Even if one is doomed to fail, I always give my students and everyone I know the benefit of the doubt, and they must fail *first* and *then* I may exact some price to pay. But to decide that even before the game starts is deeply, deeply, cynical.

I reject and will ignore all arguments about G's omniscience regarding this point because Thomas says I can use any criteria for evidence and argumentation. So save your breath.

[HeWhoAsks]

Where Christians disagree is over the required behaviour of Christians. Some say that good moral behaviour is a part of the deal and lack of it puts in peril your status as a Christian. Others ( including myself ) say that moral behaviour is commanded by Jesus and want to act that way in gratitude for what He has done for us, but that its not required for salvation. I think the effect on behaviour is similar.
Oh, so moral behavior is like extra credit? Jeez (pun intended), if it's not required for salvation, then what good is it?

Loving Jesus and "doing what the fuck you want" turn out to be incompatible states of mind in my experience.
But you've just contadicted yourself. If god *doesn't* require moral behavior, then it really doesn't matter in any ultimate sense whether one is moral. You'll get into heaven just by believing. If you do whatever you want, god won't care as far as entrance into heaven is concerned. Is there some other concern that we should be wary of? Isn't entrance into heaven the real game? There's nothing stoping someone from loving Jeebus and being immoral. Even if you, Thomas, can't make those two things compatible, that doesn't limit anyone else from doing so.

[thomas]

Surely someone more wise than me has commented earlier on the deep pessimism and cynicism of this view of Xtianity.
Not cynical or pessimistic, just realistic. Look around you and find the person in perfect relationship with everybody they know, find the person who never lied for their own gain, find the person who doesn't fundamentally look out for themselves first to some extent.

Right off the bat, with no discussion, no chance of qualification, or modification, or argument, in the most absolutist way imaginable, Xtianity says "You're a shit." What a nice sentiment, what great support, what a caring, loving idea. This is the idea with which I want to be friendly. NOT! This approach doesn't even give you the *chance* of trying and then failing. No, even before trying, you're doomed to fail. Even if one is doomed to fail, I always give my students and everyone I know the benefit of the doubt, and they must fail *first* and *then* I may exact some price to pay. But to decide that even before the game starts is deeply, deeply, cynical.
No, its atheism that says you are literally a piece of dirt. Christianity says that you're made in God's image and made for a relationship with the creator and sustainer of the universe. It is just realistic about the fact that you can't do it alone.

I reject and will ignore all arguments about G's omniscience regarding this point because Thomas says I can use any criteria for evidence and argumentation. So save your breath.
I think you still misunderstand my point on this.

[ocmpoma]

"Surely someone more wise than me has commented earlier on the deep pessimism and cynicism of this view of Xtianity."

Yes, I have batted this one around often - I call it the belittling and dehumanizing effects of Christianity. The replies I get are always quite similar to the one above.
It seems Christians have a hard time realizing that the underlying tenet of their faith is that they are worthless in the eyes of their god and need it's 'gift' of worthiness. Then they go on to say that atheism 'lowers' humans to dirt (which is not an organism, but is very valuable in my opinion as we all live on a big ball of it) and makes us worthless. I find it interesting that they can't realize that almost all atheists feel that their lives are, indeed, worth something - that something being whatever it is said atheist values; also interesting is the fact that they try and say that atheism = humans are dirt without realizing that their god must value dirt more than humans, since dirt never 'fell', won't be found wanting on J-Day, and doesn't need a sacrifice to be worthy of said deity's affections.

[Amazonis]

No, its atheism that says you are literally a piece of dirt.
Compounds created by stars, not dirt.

[thomas]

It seems Christians have a hard time realizing that the underlying tenet of their faith is that they are worthless in the eyes of their god and need it's 'gift' of worthiness.
I think I have a hard time realizing that because its a mis-representation of what Christians believe. As I said above, and I'll say again, Christians believe that they and everybody are valuable to God who desires a relationship with them. And further, its only in that relationship that they can fulfil their potential.

The comment about atheists believing everybody comes from dirt, was a cheap shot, but I think somewhat accurate. And I do question what your sense of worth really derives from, other than maybe a sense of good fortune at being a immensely improbable accident.

[thomas]

No, its atheism that says you are literally a piece of dirt.
Compounds created by stars, not dirt.
Whatever. Something of no intrinsic value. Worthless. You can dress up the bleakness of atheism all you like., it's still bleak. That doesn't effect its truth or otherwise, but still it's bleak.

[thomas]

Where Christians disagree is over the required behaviour of Christians. Some say that good moral behaviour is a part of the deal and lack of it puts in peril your status as a Christian. Others ( including myself ) say that moral behaviour is commanded by Jesus and want to act that way in gratitude for what He has done for us, but that its not required for salvation. I think the effect on behaviour is similar.
Oh, so moral behavior is like extra credit? Jeez (pun intended), if it's not required for salvation, then what good is it?

Loving Jesus and "doing what the fuck you want" turn out to be incompatible states of mind in my experience.
But you've just contadicted yourself. If god *doesn't* require moral behavior, then it really doesn't matter in any ultimate sense whether one is moral. You'll get into heaven just by believing. If you do whatever you want, god won't care as far as entrance into heaven is concerned. Is there some other concern that we should be wary of? Isn't entrance into heaven the real game? There's nothing stoping someone from loving Jeebus and being immoral. Even if you, Thomas, can't make those two things compatible, that doesn't limit anyone else from doing so.
God is a being that lives in relationship with us, not some cosmic state-machine to be gamed to best advantage. Don't you know that in a loving relationship people try to do what the other person wants for the other persons benefit, even if its at cost to themselves ? A relationship with God is like that. I positively want to live in relationship with God, and follow His way. I believe that He wants only the best for me, to help me fulfil my potential.

As for the unscrupulous gamer of salvation that you refer to, I think its highly unlikely. Remember part of becoming a Christian is repentance, which is an honest intention to turn away from deliberately rejecting God and His way. God will not be mocked.

[WITHTEETH]

How quaint, you have a relationship. I hope your using lube as he screws you.

[ocmpoma]

"I think I have a hard time realizing that because its a mis-representation of what Christians believe."
Depends on the Christian. I've read many times on this site from Christian posters that we are all sinners who don't deserve the redemption that this deity has offered us. If that isn't worthelss, I don't know what is.

"And I do question what your sense of worth really derives from, other than maybe a sense of good fortune at being a immensely improbable accident."
As I've said before, my sense of worth comes from me. I don't really care of what value I am to others, but I know that most humans do, and others' opinions of them is where quite a few atheists, I'm sure, also get a sense of worth.
I question where your sense of worth comes from, since the only place you seem to get it is from a belief in a sadistic deity who created you for the sole purpose of realizing that you were a damnable sinner who can only be lifted above your own sinful nature by the infinite mercy of said god, even while realizing that you don't deserve to be saved from your own pathetic inability to meet the standard that this deity created you to be unable to meet. That's the crux of why Christianity is so belittling - God created you unable to meet God's standard. I'll admit that atheism is a fairly bleak outlook - if you think of value as being something inherent in an object, instead of assigned. Stardust has no 'intinsic value' - but neither does anything else. Even by your own religion, your life only has value because God says so - and God can change its mind. But, you want bleak? How much more bleak can you get than having all of existence depend upon the whim of a being that is willing to abandon people who don't live up to its standards - even when it created them as unable to do so?

No, I take that back. It's not bleak. It's pathetic - like a father who cuts one of his son's legs off at birth and then accuses him of not being a good enough runner. But hey, Daddy'll carry you down the road, and everything'll be okay, right, little guy?

[Amazonis]

No, its atheism that says you are literally a piece of dirt.
Compounds created by stars, not dirt.
Whatever. Something of no intrinsic value. Worthless. You can dress up the bleakness of atheism all you like., it's still bleak. That doesn't effect its truth or otherwise, but still it's bleak.
Intrinsic value is a matter of opinion. You can make both christianity and atheism look both bleak and exiting depending on your use of words:

Christianity and atheism can both be made to sound bleak

Bleak Christianity: Asuming that god created us gives us no credit for our success. It is demeaning and bleak to think that our lives are not ruled by us, but an invisible dictator.

Bleak Atheism: Asuming that we were all brought into existance by chance from a load of star dust is demeaning of our success and ability to feal emotions.


Christianity and Atheism can both be made to sound exiting

Exiting Christianity: We were brought into existance by a devine power, who gave us the ability to experiance love and the beauty of our surroundings.

Exiting Atheism: We were brought into existance by the marvel of nature and our amazing universe, and evolved so far we can now question our existance as a species.

My point is, intrinsic value does not prove anything, and atheism can be made to look just as amazing as christianity anyway.

[thomas]

How quaint, you have a relationship. I hope your using lube as he screws you.
I'm truly sorry that I don't have the ability to communicate to you the value I find in that relationship.

[snap crafter]

Woah, thomas, I can't believe it, you turned this hopeless soul to a believing biblepusher. I'm praying right now to let god know that all his illogicalness is meaningless so I can have this funny feeling in my tummy and have a feeling of 'worth' that has been missing in my life. Ok, now that that's done, according to your logic, I can go kill people then off myself because, as long as I believe in buddy christ, I get a free ride into heaven so I can laugh at all the 'sinning' peaceful jewish lawyers down in this horrible hell you seem to have adopted to be different from the original faith. Priase jesus indeed.

[thomas]

"I think I have a hard time realizing that because its a mis-representation of what Christians believe."
Depends on the Christian. I've read many times on this site from Christian posters that we are all sinners who don't deserve the redemption that this deity has offered us. If that isn't worthelss, I don't know what is.
Your refuting a different point than the one I made. I didn't say we deserved our salvation, just that we were valuable to God and He desired us to accept it, as a gift, due to nothing we did ourselves to deserve it. That doesn't make us worthless it makes us valuable to God.

"And I do question what your sense of worth really derives from, other than maybe a sense of good fortune at being a immensely improbable accident."
As I've said before, my sense of worth comes from me. I don't really care of what value I am to others, but I know that most humans do, and others' opinions of them is where quite a few atheists, I'm sure, also get a sense of worth.
I don't doubt you have a sense of worth, just question what its source is. Complete the sentence "I'm of worth because......"

I question where your sense of worth comes from, since the only place you seem to get it is from a belief in a sadistic deity who created you for the sole purpose of realizing that you were a damnable sinner who can only be lifted above your own sinful nature by the infinite mercy of said god, even while realizing that you don't deserve to be saved from your own pathetic inability to meet the standard that this deity created you to be unable to meet.
Phew ! Long sentence. Try not to put words in my mouth. Let me try and re-state it. "I'm of worth because I was created by God who created me for the purpose of being in relationship with Him. Even though I rejected that relationship by my own choices and actions, God still provides a means to restore that relationship if I want to do that. I don't deserve that relationship to be restored by my own merits, it's a gift from God". There, that doesn't sound too bad now does it ?

That's the crux of why Christianity is so belittling - God created you unable to meet God's standard. I'll admit that atheism is a fairly bleak outlook - if you think of value as being something inherent in an object, instead of assigned. Stardust has no 'intinsic value' - but neither does anything else. Even by your own religion, your life only has value because God says so - and God can change its mind. But, you want bleak? How much more bleak can you get than having all of existence depend upon the whim of a being that is willing to abandon people who don't live up to its standards - even when it created them as unable to do so?
No. I, and you, are created in the image of God, it's not a decision that God will change at a whim, nor is salvation something that is going to change. What better promise for constancy is there than a promise from the creator and sustainer of the universe ?

No, I take that back. It's not bleak. It's pathetic - like a father who cuts one of his son's legs off at birth and then accuses him of not being a good enough runner. But hey, Daddy'll carry you down the road, and everything'll be okay, right, little guy?
Actually, its more like the son cuts off his own leg, and then each of his sons is born without a leg, but the father sets up an everlasting leg factory. All you have to do is walk in and pick up a leg. Some people just prefer to hobble along. Now that is bleak

[thomas]

Woah, thomas, I can't believe it, you turned this hopeless soul to a believing biblepusher. I'm praying right now to let god know that all his illogicalness is meaningless so I can have this funny feeling in my tummy and have a feeling of 'worth' that has been missing in my life. Ok, now that that's done, according to your logic, I can go kill people then off myself because, as long as I believe in buddy christ, I get a free ride into heaven so I can laugh at all the 'sinning' peaceful jewish lawyers down in this horrible hell you seem to have adopted to be different from the original faith. Priase jesus indeed.
Like I said, God will not be mocked.

[snap crafter]

Oh, I think I mocked him pretty good, but I took the cheap shot you opened with your 'we come from dirt' crap.

[WITHTEETH]

mock mock mock, mokity mockmock

[alaspooryorick]

Is religion for the morally weak?

We'll deal with Christianity here, the only thing I have any real background in. Someone mentioned the point that if atheists have no "fear motive" why not go and kill people or other such things? But at least according to some beliefs in Christianity, Jesus forgives all sins of believers. So why not go commit adultury or have premarital sex (we'll use this, since there aren't technically legal penalties) and then go ask for forgiveness? You'd still get to heaven, although perhaps not as "well-rewarded."

I'm tempted to say that conditioning through the years, religious or not, has convinced us of a sense of intrinsic right and wrong, although our definitions have certainly changed over time. Although it's very easy to say that religious persons are moral because of fear of damnation or desire to be rewarded, I feel like most people have other personal reasons for being moral, which may be part of religion as well. But when I was a theist, I found myself not asking "What would Jesus do?" or "Will I go to hell for doing this?" but simply, "Is this right?" I'd like to think that's what most people consider.

But, to each their own. I am not going to snub a person for behaving morally because they asked themselves what Jesus would do.

[HeWhoAsks]

God is a being that lives in relationship with us, not some cosmic state-machine to be gamed to best advantage.
He sure acts like it, what with the rule about just believing in him and eternity is yours.

There may or may not (OK, may not) be a relationship possible with God, but I'm not talking about that. You changed the subject. I was talking about the game God sets up about getting into heaven: just believe in me, and you're good for all time.

As for the unscrupulous gamer of salvation that you refer to, I think its highly unlikely. Remember part of becoming a Christian is repentance, which is an honest intention to turn away from deliberately rejecting God and His way. God will not be mocked.
Unlikely isn't the question: possible is the question. The game god has set up doesn't require repentence for admittance to heaven.

[HeWhoAsks]

Surely someone more wise than me has commented earlier on the deep pessimism and cynicism of this view of Xtianity.
Not cynical or pessimistic, just realistic. Look around you and find the person in perfect relationship with everybody they know, find the person who never lied for their own gain, find the person who doesn't fundamentally look out for themselves first to some extent.
I will grant you both. Realistic: yes. But cynical: still. *From the word go* Xtianity *depends* on our failures. Even *I* give my students the benefit of the doubt *until* they prove me wrong: I don't assume they will prove me wrong before they've even had a chance.

[whoneedscience]

No, its atheism that says you are literally a piece of dirt.
Compounds created by stars, not dirt.
Whatever. Something of no intrinsic value. Worthless. You can dress up the bleakness of atheism all you like., it's still bleak. That doesn't effect its truth or otherwise, but still it's bleak.
Elements, not compounds. The former are the result of nuclear reactions; the latter, chemical. Important distinction, but I'm just being a jerk here. :)

Actually, its more like the son cuts off his own leg, and then each of his sons is born without a leg, but the father sets up an everlasting leg factory. All you have to do is walk in and pick up a leg. Some people just prefer to hobble along. Now that is bleak
Surely you aren't referring to original sin? If you are, does that mean that the billions of unbaptised people are automatically sinners just because they didn't have the fortune of being born into a culture that tells them something they should, somehow, already know?

Even taking your simile at face value, how can you make the claim that "all you have to do is walk in and pick up a leg", when so many people today and through history knew nothing of this ostensible leg factory. This father sounds like a jackass. How convenient, too. Those damn, incompetent Atheists/Mulsims/Jews/Democrats, they just prefer to hobble along when the objective truth of the leg factory, as revealed by our loving Big Brother to us, his chosen people, is right in front of them.

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, and I can see how, properly understood by a good person religion can be tolerant and helpful, but damn, you're calling what bleak?

[ocmpoma]

"Your refuting a different point than the one I made."
Actually, I was just pointing out that there are Christians out there who disagree with you.

"Complete the sentence "I'm of worth because......""
I'm of worth because I say so. Not much difference than your version: I'm of worth because the deity I believe in says so.

"Try not to put words in my mouth. Let me try and re-state it."
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to show you how fucked up Christianity is. Notice the bit near the end of your description of your worth where you say that you don't deserve it?
From dictionary.com:
undeserving
adj : not deserving; "the undeserving poor" (syn: undeserving of, unworthy of)
(emphasis mine)
"What better promise for constancy is there than a promise from the creator and sustainer of the universe ?"
Depends on the creator/sustainer... I'm not too fond of the modus operandi of Yahweh - see below.

"Actually, its more like the son cuts off his own leg..."
Sorry, but not quite. God created Adam and Eve, according to Christian belief. God made them the way they were - fallible, possessing free will, able to succumb to temptation. God also made Lucifer, who wound up falling himself (due to his nature) and tempted Eve, etc. etc.
Now, to keep the legless analogy going, it would go something like this:
Daddy gets Mommy pregnant. He has a son whom he intends to raise as an athlete - a runner, and also strokes his ego a lot.
Daddy gets Mommy pregnant again, but this time he alters the fetus' DNA so that its leg bones will be very weak - okay for walking, but not for running. Soon older bro' goads younger bro' into running (ego and all that - something Dad knew would happen sooner or later). Lil' bro breaks his legs irreprably.
Daddy says, "You and all your offspring shall have faulty legs which will break when you walk as punishment for your trying to run when I told you not to. No, it's still your fault, don't try and blame your older brother for tempting you - I told you not to run. Now your children and grandchildren shall all have deformed legs."
"But," Daddy continues, "Even though I only think that runners are worth anything, I shall give your children painful prosthetics which will allow them to run - sort of. It's good enough, I guess, for me to refrain from cutting you and your kids off from the family."
Something like that. Personally, I think anyone who deliberately hobbles their kids (and God, in the Christian mythos, deliberately hobbled humanity) and then blames them for their failures is sick. Such a person (or mythological construct) deserves my scorn, not my worship.

[ghoulslime]

Woah, thomas, I can't believe it, you turned this hopeless soul to a believing biblepusher. I'm praying right now to let god know that all his illogicalness is meaningless so I can have this funny feeling in my tummy and have a feeling of 'worth' that has been missing in my life. Ok, now that that's done, according to your logic, I can go kill people then off myself because, as long as I believe in buddy christ, I get a free ride into heaven so I can laugh at all the 'sinning' peaceful jewish lawyers down in this horrible hell you seem to have adopted to be different from the original faith. Priase jesus indeed.
Like I said, God will not be mocked.
Nana, Nana, Nana, God has a little penis! Blah, blah! Hey, God, you have poo in your pants! Haha, Haha, Haha! Screw you, God! Your mother wears army boots! :P:P:P

[Amazonis]

Nana, Nana, Nana, God has a little penis! Blah, blah! Hey, God, you have poo in your pants! Haha, Haha, Haha! Screw you, God! Your mother wears army boots! :P:P:P
Yahooo!!! Me and god have a little something in common! :D :P

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

"I'm of worth because I was created by God who created me for the purpose of being in relationship with Him. Even though I rejected that relationship by my own choices and actions, God still provides a means to restore that relationship if I want to do that. I don't deserve that relationship to be restored by my own merits, it's a gift from God"
Should God be surprised that his children reject a relationship with him? After all, it's not like he commonly makes himself known to us. Sure, there's the Bible, but...........

It's kind of like if your parents were to abandon you at birth, and as you grow up, the only clue you have to their existence is a note promising that they'll return for you at an unspecified point in the future. Sure, that note may be a source of comfort in your childhood, but as you grow into adulthood (with still no return), you'd rightly grow skeptical of their claims. Continuing to hold onto hope would be unrealistic.

[Amazonis]

I was created by God who created me for the purpose of being in relationship with Him.
What, like one of those relationships those preists have with little boys? :|

[HeWhoAsks]

I was created by God who created me for the purpose of being in relationship with Him.
This stretches the meaning of the word "relationship" beyond any rational boundary. Are you saying you and God hold conversations (and not just one-way conversations); go out for lunch (sorry)? There would seem to be none of the ongoing give and take that is required of a relationship.

[Rhinoqulous]

Any person who needs a threat of any kind in order to behaive in an ethical way should be put to death. Period. Atheists and theists alike.
So you threaten people to behave morally outside of being threatened? Huh. Are you by chance a member of the House of Representatives?

Rhinoq

[Rhinoqulous]

Others ( including myself ) say that moral behaviour is commanded by Jesus and want to act that way in gratitude for what He has done for us, but that its not required for salvation.
And this is why you can have evil motherfuckers who can still be considered "Good Christians".

[Rhinoqulous]

No, its atheism that says you are literally a piece of dirt. Christianity says that you're made in God's image and made for a relationship with the creator and sustainer of the universe. It is just realistic about the fact that you can't do it alone.
.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

No, Christianity says we are literally made from dirt. Atheists (or at least evolutionists, of which I think everyone here is) say we are Homo Sapien Sapiens, and that we descended from a Super Chimp named Chuckles that escaped from some weird hyper-temporal-circus from the year 2525. OK, I made that last part up.

Rhinoq

[thomas]

Oh, I think I mocked him pretty good, but I took the cheap shot you opened with your 'we come from dirt' crap.
mock mock mock, mokity mockmock
Nana, Nana, Nana, God has a little penis! Blah, blah! Hey, God, you have poo in your pants! Haha, Haha, Haha! Screw you, God! Your mother wears army boots!
You missed my point. Which is that you can't fool God into believing that you have repented, because He knows what you're thinking.

[snap crafter]

I think you missed the sarcasm of the post in which I became a christian you close-minded fool.

[ocmpoma]

"(W)e descended from a Super Chimp named Chuckles that escaped from some weird hyper-temporal-circus from the year 2525. OK, I made that last part up."

No! You found out! Now you, too, must die!

[thomas]

I think you missed the sarcasm of the post in which I became a christian you close-minded fool.
I didn't miss the sarcasm at all, my response pointed out that your sarcasm was not well directed. Oh, and making petty personal attacks doesn't help your argument at all.

[thomas]

God is a being that lives in relationship with us, not some cosmic state-machine to be gamed to best advantage.
He sure acts like it, what with the rule about just believing in him and eternity is yours.

There may or may not (OK, may not) be a relationship possible with God, but I'm not talking about that. You changed the subject. I was talking about the game God sets up about getting into heaven: just believe in me, and you're good for all time.
You continue to mis-understand the claims of Christianity. You're attacking some pale cartoon of what Christianity claims to be. What is it about repentance and entering into a relationship with a loving God that you don't understand ?

Unlikely isn't the question: possible is the question. The game god has set up doesn't require repentence for admittance to heaven.
It is not a game and it does require repentance.

[thomas]

I will grant you both. Realistic: yes. But cynical: still. *From the word go* Xtianity *depends* on our failures. Even *I* give my students the benefit of the doubt *until* they prove me wrong: I don't assume they will prove me wrong before they've even had a chance.
No Christianity does not depend on our failures it just acknowledges them as a reality. We all have the benefit of the doubt from the get-go. If this wasn't true then Jesus could not have lived the perfect life as a human.

[thomas]

"Your refuting a different point than the one I made."
Actually, I was just pointing out that there are Christians out there who disagree with you.
Yes, but you said they disagreed with a point I hadn't made. I just pointed out back to you that I actually do agree with those other Christians on the issue you raised (humans not deserving salvation).

"Complete the sentence "I'm of worth because......""
I'm of worth because I say so. Not much difference than your version: I'm of worth because the deity I believe in says so.
Is that the best you've got "because I say so" ? Well what kind of worth or value is it that is only recognised by you ? Doesn't the worth or value of an object derive from what value other people assign to it ? It's a lot different from "my version" which does assign value from not only any old outside entity but from the being that created me.

"Try not to put words in my mouth. Let me try and re-state it."
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to show you how fucked up Christianity is. Notice the bit near the end of your description of your worth where you say that you don't deserve it?
From dictionary.com:
undeserving
adj : not deserving; "the undeserving poor" (syn: undeserving of, unworthy of)
(emphasis mine)

Let me try and say this again. Humans have intrinsic worth and value due to the love and concern shown for them by their creator God. Humans do not deserve salvation but it is made available to them anyway as a consequence of Gods assigning them an intrinsic worth and value. Do you get the distinction or do I need to find a way to say it more clearly ?

"What better promise for constancy is there than a promise from the creator and sustainer of the universe ?"
Depends on the creator/sustainer... I'm not too fond of the modus operandi of Yahweh - see below.
Yes, but what you show below argues from the perspective of God being constant and reliable in His ways doesn't it ? I didn't say you would like it or had to like it, just that a property of the Christian God is consistency and reliability.

"Actually, its more like the son cuts off his own leg..."
Sorry, but not quite. God created Adam and Eve, according to Christian belief. God made them the way they were - fallible, possessing free will, able to succumb to temptation. God also made Lucifer, who wound up falling himself (due to his nature) and tempted Eve, etc. etc.
This is probably a whole different thread, but God created us and the snake with the capability of rejecting God and making wrong choices but not an innnate inevitability to act that way.

Now, to keep the legless analogy going, it would go something like this:
Daddy gets Mommy pregnant. He has a son whom he intends to raise as an athlete - a runner, and also strokes his ego a lot.
Daddy gets Mommy pregnant again, but this time he alters the fetus' DNA so that its leg bones will be very weak - okay for walking, but not for running. Soon older bro' goads younger bro' into running (ego and all that - something Dad knew would happen sooner or later). Lil' bro breaks his legs irreprably.
Daddy says, "You and all your offspring shall have faulty legs which will break when you walk as punishment for your trying to run when I told you not to. No, it's still your fault, don't try and blame your older brother for tempting you - I told you not to run. Now your children and grandchildren shall all have deformed legs."
"But," Daddy continues, "Even though I only think that runners are worth anything, I shall give your children painful prosthetics which will allow them to run - sort of. It's good enough, I guess, for me to refrain from cutting you and your kids off from the family."
Something like that. Personally, I think anyone who deliberately hobbles their kids (and God, in the Christian mythos, deliberately hobbled humanity) and then blames them for their failures is sick. Such a person (or mythological construct) deserves my scorn, not my worship.
Thing is that you look at it from your perspective and call it hobbling. I look at it and ask myself how we as creatures could have a meaningful relationship with a creator god without the ability to enter into or leave that relationship freely.

[thomas]

Should God be surprised that his children reject a relationship with him? After all, it's not like he commonly makes himself known to us. Sure, there's the Bible, but...........
I think God makes Himself known to us daily, as you say through the Bible, but also through the Holy Spirit and prayer.

[thomas]

I was created by God who created me for the purpose of being in relationship with Him.
This stretches the meaning of the word "relationship" beyond any rational boundary. Are you saying you and God hold conversations (and not just one-way conversations); go out for lunch (sorry)? There would seem to be none of the ongoing give and take that is required of a relationship.
We've never been out to lunch, but I would call it a relationship. God does speak to me through the Bible and through prayer.

[ocmpoma]

"I just pointed out back to you that I actually do agree with those other Christians on the issue you raised (humans not deserving salvation)."
Ah. Back to the undeserving = unworthy bit, then.

"Is that the best you've got "because I say so" ? Well what kind of worth or value is it that is only recognised by you ? Doesn't the worth or value of an object derive from what value other people assign to it ? It's a lot different from "my version" which does assign value from not only any old outside entity but from the being that created me."
Well, the best you've got is "because I say God says so." Worth that is recognized by me is the only worth that really exists for me - after all, if I think that something is worthless, than it is as far as I'm concerned. I won't pay for or otherwise sacrifice for something that I deem is worthless. Worth is assigned by people - whether self-worth or otherwise. Your version is just you assigning yourself worth. If you insist that your version is something else assigning you worth, I remind you that it is better to base one's self-worth on one's self, rather than on others. Basing your self worth on others' opinions of said worth is what victims of abuse who return to their abusers often do. Which is another reason that Christianity is dehumanizing.

"Do you get the distinction or do I need to find a way to say it more clearly ?"
I get the distinction - too bad it's a false concept. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. Worth is assigned, always. Without someone to value something, that thing has no value or worth.

"I didn't say you would like it or had to like it, just that a property of the Christian God is consistency and reliability."
Sure - and I don't like constant, reliable sadism any more than I like unreliable sadism.

"This is probably a whole different thread, but God created us and the snake with the capability of rejecting God and making wrong choices but not an innnate inevitability to act that way."
There ya go - I blame God.

"I look at it and ask myself how we as creatures could have a meaningful relationship with a creator god without the ability to enter into or leave that relationship freely."
I look at it and ask myself why the Hell you would want a relationship with someone that sick and abusive... but then again, see above about basing your self worth on someone else's opinion of you.

[calpurnpiso]

One must remember that we created morality and morals are relative. In my view, religious beliefs which induces insecure feelings and acceptance of irrational concepts as a tangible reality, is nothing more than a form of neurological disease/aberration that affects the CREATOR of all our ideas, dreams, ideas and biological computer in commands of our bodies...our BRAIN.

Christianity, which I refer to as Christ-psychosis, is simple the worst strain of the mental illness of religious psychosis. Christianity, who copied, distorted,( while eliminating the competition,) many of the pagan religions of antiquity made the relentless pathogen ( no unlike the depression causing Borna virus, IMHO) evolve for over 1,800 years into the disgusting, perverse, hypocritical, intolerant, delusion filled "faith" we refer to as Christianity! Though people infected with it ( about 85% of Americans) swear it is highly "moral", history proves otherwise...one can start with Constantinus I (325.c.e), then crazy Augustinus of Hippo, devious Eusebius of Alexandria, psychopathic killer Cyril, castrato origen, retarded Aquinas,....Killer in the Christ-Tooth fairy Carolus magnus, Torching maniac in Christ Torquemada, Christ Killers eliminator Hitler, and recently Jones of people's Temple (1970s), Koresh, Doe and the pious Chris-psychotic Andrea Yates who used her devotional Christian morals to drown those "satan possesed children"

Christ-psychosis, the most virulent strain of religious neurosis, IMHO, is worse that HIV-AIDS. It has infected the human brain for over 1800 years making the infected ABIDE by the genocidal delusions. HIV is a "good thing" compared to Christ-psychosis (HIBV - Human Immunodeficiency Brain Virus).

I do not think HIV can match this:

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sin.html

Just to think that only few hundred years ago, the Christ-psychotics thought the HEART was the organ to THINK with, a repository of the soul and emotions communicator!!..Alas, some of them still think it is!!.....well, crazy is as crazy does :/

[thomas]

In my view, religious beliefs which induces insecure feelings and acceptance of irrational concepts as a tangible reality, is nothing more than a form of neurological disease/aberration that affects the CREATOR of all our ideas, dreams, ideas and biological computer in commands of our bodies...our BRAIN.
If millions upon millions of seemingly sane and rational people are in fact unknowingly consumed by a neurological disease, then how can you be certain that you are not also subject to such a thing ? Maybe the person with the acceptance of irrational concepts is you ?

[whoneedscience]

You continue to mis-understand the claims of Christianity. You're attacking some pale cartoon of what Christianity claims to be. What is it about repentance and entering into a relationship with a loving God that you don't understand ?
Probably the part about letting go of all reason and yielding to an institution that has repeatedly proven itself ignorant and destructive only because it says it's the right thing to do.

[thomas]

More pale cartoons. If you considered Christianity in its best light and still concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, then I'd say fair enough and let you go on your way. As it is the desparate attempts to talk Christianity down smacks of a desire to not want to think it is true regardless of the truthfulness or accuracy of its claims.

[Lurker]

Furthermore.... it seems most of the arguments on this forum against religion are directed at the people - not the evidence. As if labeling Joe Smelvin in Pioria, IL a christian kook because he refuses to drive on Sunday's proves that christianity is false. Maybe I can prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity is false if I label him a wild-haired freak that rarely changed his clothes.

And before you scream "what evidence?", I'll happily point you to people who have made a career out of arguing against this 'non-existent' evidence that you can't seem to locate. They've written whole books on the subject.

[HeWhoAsks]

Which is that you can't fool God into believing that you have repented, because He knows what you're thinking.
And he knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!:lol:

[HeWhoAsks]

God is a being that lives in relationship with us, not some cosmic state-machine to be gamed to best advantage.
He sure acts like it, what with the rule about just believing in him and eternity is yours.

There may or may not (OK, may not) be a relationship possible with God, but I'm not talking about that. You changed the subject. I was talking about the game God sets up about getting into heaven: just believe in me, and you're good for all time.
You continue to mis-understand the claims of Christianity. You're attacking some pale cartoon of what Christianity claims to be. What is it about repentance and entering into a relationship with a loving God that you don't understand ?

Unlikely isn't the question: possible is the question. The game god has set up doesn't require repentence for admittance to heaven.
It is not a game and it does require repentance.
You're trying to shift the discussion from a place that doesn't serve your preconception. I'm perfectly willing to talk about repentence, and I even responded to you about what a relationship could *possibly* be (because it makes no sense whatsoever to me). So I'd like you to return the favor and focus here on *my* topic:

When it works out that if you believe you enter heaven, that's the rules of the game I'm talking about. Maybe the word "game" is harsh, but it's still the same tit for tat no matter what you call it.

[HeWhoAsks]

I will grant you both. Realistic: yes. But cynical: still. *From the word go* Xtianity *depends* on our failures. Even *I* give my students the benefit of the doubt *until* they prove me wrong: I don't assume they will prove me wrong before they've even had a chance.
No Christianity does not depend on our failures it just acknowledges them as a reality. We all have the benefit of the doubt from the get-go.
Original sin says nay.

[HeWhoAsks]

I was created by God who created me for the purpose of being in relationship with Him.
This stretches the meaning of the word "relationship" beyond any rational boundary. Are you saying you and God hold conversations (and not just one-way conversations); go out for lunch (sorry)? There would seem to be none of the ongoing give and take that is required of a relationship.
We've never been out to lunch, but I would call it a relationship. God does speak to me through the Bible and through prayer.
If you had a "relationship" with a human being in which the other person wrote a book that you liked, and you spoke to this person in your private thoughts, *no one* would call that a relationship.

[HeWhoAsks]

More pale cartoons. If you considered Christianity in its best light and still concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, then I'd say fair enough and let you go on your way. As it is the desparate attempts to talk Christianity down smacks of a desire to not want to think it is true regardless of the truthfulness or accuracy of its claims.
I disagree with some of this "pale cartoon" characterization. The ignorance and destruction (the exact characterization from post #51 that prompted the "pale cartoon" response) of Christian churches (Crusades, witch burnings, Galileo, etc.) throughout history is well documented, and even the good works of the Church cannot remove that reality.

It may be "talking down" Christianity, but it's a problem only if it's not factual.

[thomas]

Which is that you can't fool God into believing that you have repented, because He knows what you're thinking.
And he knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!:lol:
You've been drinking too much Coca-Cola

[thomas]

You're trying to shift the discussion from a place that doesn't serve your preconception. I'm perfectly willing to talk about repentence, and I even responded to you about what a relationship could *possibly* be (because it makes no sense whatsoever to me). So I'd like you to return the favor and focus here on *my* topic:

When it works out that if you believe you enter heaven, that's the rules of the game I'm talking about. Maybe the word "game" is harsh, but it's still the same tit for tat no matter what you call it.
I'm not sure how to focus on your topic when I don't agree that it is a fair representation of what Christians believe ? We can discuss your made-up version of Christianity and its relationship to a game if you like, but I'm not sure where that is going to get us ?

[ocmpoma]

"If you considered Christianity in its best light and still concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, then I'd say fair enough and let you go on your way."

Hey, it's not our fault the Judeo-Christian god is a sicko.

[HeWhoAsks]

You're trying to shift the discussion from a place that doesn't serve your preconception. I'm perfectly willing to talk about repentence, and I even responded to you about what a relationship could *possibly* be (because it makes no sense whatsoever to me). So I'd like you to return the favor and focus here on *my* topic:

When it works out that if you believe you enter heaven, that's the rules of the game I'm talking about. Maybe the word "game" is harsh, but it's still the same tit for tat no matter what you call it.
I'm not sure how to focus on your topic when I don't agree that it is a fair representation of what Christians believe ? We can discuss your made-up version of Christianity and its relationship to a game if you like, but I'm not sure where that is going to get us ?
So, enlighten me. Are you saying that the idea that if you believe in God you enter heaven when you die is not Christianity?

[thomas]

No Christianity does not depend on our failures it just acknowledges them as a reality. We all have the benefit of the doubt from the get-go.
Original sin says nay.
Actually original sin says "by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life", and not of any ability to choose correctly or incorrectly.

[thomas]

I disagree with some of this "pale cartoon" characterization. The ignorance and destruction (the exact characterization from post #51 that prompted the "pale cartoon" response) of Christian churches (Crusades, witch burnings, Galileo, etc.) throughout history is well documented, and even the good works of the Church cannot remove that reality.

It may be "talking down" Christianity, but it's a problem only if it's not factual.
Sir, you are a perpetual partial quoter, and it gets my goat. My arguments and responses to posts are not guaranteed to be valid when taken only in part. Please stop.

Post #51 said "Probably the part about letting go of all reason and yielding to an institution that has repeatedly proven itself ignorant and destructive only because it says it's the right thing to do."

The pale cartoon I alluded to was about "letting go of all reason" and doing that "only because it(the church) says it's the right thing to do.". Neither of those things are accurate portrayals of Christianity.

[thomas]

If you had a "relationship" with a human being in which the other person wrote a book that you liked, and you spoke to this person in your private thoughts, *no one* would call that a relationship.
Maybe this deserves a whole thread to itself. I admit I struggle to communicate this in a lucid way. But I'm willing to try if you at least cut me a little slack. Let me think about this one and how best to put it across.

[whoneedscience]

Furthermore.... it seems most of the arguments on this forum against religion are directed at the people - not the evidence. As if labeling Joe Smelvin in Pioria, IL a christian kook because he refuses to drive on Sunday's proves that christianity is false. Maybe I can prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity is false if I label him a wild-haired freak that rarely changed his clothes.

And before you scream "what evidence?", I'll happily point you to people who have made a career out of arguing against this 'non-existent' evidence that you can't seem to locate. They've written whole books on the subject.
I agree that atheists have a tendancy to attack theists rather than religion, but for secular humanists like me (and probably most of the bigger full-time atheists here), the problem is the danger of religion. If religion can produce such radical idiocy, even if the majority of its followers are moderate, then society would be better off without its corrupting effects, especially when there is a viable alternative: science and secular philosophy.

I hate it when people are unwilling to be reasonable and nowhere do I see this more than in religion. It's not a matter of debating the evidence. Whenever someone talks about evidence, they are arguing for their own individual version of god. Religion is dangerous because, once objective reasoning is thrown out the window, everyone can have a completely different version of morality and God. Yes, the Bible and the religious sect you belong to can give you some structure, but religion itself fundamentally demands a rejection of skepticism in favor of faith. In science, when you have evidence that your current understanding is inadequate, you look to how it can be objectively improved. In religion, you can simply ignore what you don't like, or, worse yet, simply yield responsibility to your religious leader. This is simply unacceptable, especially when there are so many people using this to promote their own agenda. Attacking theists points out the more fundamental dangers of religion.

I've read the evidence. It's crap. I've never heard a legitimate argument for the existence of a god or justification for religion, on this site or anywhere else (with a possible exception of deism, somewhat due to the lack of evidence on the beginning of time, but more because the concept itself eliminates the possibility of an active god, and therefore the deist must decide on his or her own what is right or wrong).

If you considered Christianity in its best light and still concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, then I'd say fair enough and let you go on your way
If you do the same for secular humanism, I'd say your devotion to Christianity is shallow to the point of being a rationalization for moral weakness and malevolence.

If you ask me, the teaching of love thy neighbor makes the humanistic atheist the best Christian. The idea of God is nothing more than an attempt to control people who don't know any better. All other Christian teachings are either outdated, immoral or just complete crap.

[thomas]

So, enlighten me. Are you saying that the idea that if you believe in God you enter heaven when you die is not Christianity?
I am saying that is a partial view. I try not to post bunches of scripture but being as you asked, and seeing as how the short-hand descriptions I usually use are being questioned......

We're all sinners

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

There is a penalty for sin.

"for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23

There is a need to confess your sins.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1John 1:9)

"For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10

You need to repent and turn from your sin.

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 3:19

"I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Luke 13:3

"Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" Luke 15:10

You need to believe that Jesus died to pay for your sins.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the scriptures" 1st Corinthians 15:3-4

You need to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:" John 1:12

For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13 also Joel 2:32

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not that of yourselves; it is the gift of God" Ephesians 2:8

Accepting Him as Lord means willingly submitting to His authority over you.

[thomas]

If you considered Christianity in its best light and still concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, then I'd say fair enough and let you go on your way
If you do the same for secular humanism, I'd say your devotion to Christianity is shallow to the point of being a rationalization for moral weakness and malevolence.
I'm sure it's just my stupidity but whilst I understand every single word, I have no idea what you're talking about ? I think you said that if I considered secular humanism in its best light and concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, and you said fair enough and let me go on my way then you would conclude that my Christianity was shallow ? Is that what you meant to say ?

If you ask me, the teaching of love thy neighbor makes the humanistic atheist the best Christian. The idea of God is nothing more than an attempt to control people who don't know any better. All other Christian teachings are either outdated, immoral or just complete crap.
A humanistic atheist is the best Christian ? What on earth do you mean ? Doesn't a humanistic atheist reject Christianity ?

Are you sure that the idea of God is nothing more than an attempt to control people ? Are all practitioners of Christianity either trying to control somebody or being controlled ? Who are these people trying to do the controlling and what do they get out of it ? Careful with this line of thinking, next thing you know you'll be attempting to bomb government buildings before "they get you".

[Amazonis]

And before you scream "what evidence?", I'll happily point you to people who have made a career out of arguing against this 'non-existent' evidence that you can't seem to locate. They've written whole books on the subject.
Atheists base their evidence on years of scientific research, which in the case of evolution has being proven correct time and time again. Calling conclusive scientific proof 'non existant evidence' demostrates your feable ignorance in the matter. And you say atheists write books on 'non existant evidence'? Have you ever heard of the bible!? :rolleyes:

[whoneedscience]

I'm sure it's just my stupidity but whilst I understand every single word, I have no idea what you're talking about ? I think you said that if I considered secular humanism in its best light and concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient, and you said fair enough and let me go on my way then you would conclude that my Christianity was shallow ? Is that what you meant to say ?
Yes, I'm sure :D.

If you considered secular humanism in its best light and concluded it was unreasonable, I would conclude...

Way to dodge my point, though.

A humanistic atheist is the best Christian ? What on earth do you mean ? Doesn't a humanistic atheist reject Christianity ?

Are you sure that the idea of God is nothing more than an attempt to control people ? Are all practitioners of Christianity either trying to control somebody or being controlled ? Who are these people trying to do the controlling and what do they get out of it ? Careful with this line of thinking, next thing you know you'll be attempting to bomb government buildings before "they get you".
A humanistic atheist takes the message of love and instead of using it to spread religious propaganda and lies, tries to rid society of the idiocy and corruption that is at the heart of so many religious people and institutions.

Certainly you must understand that the way we behave is strongly influenced by the environment in which we were raised. Everything from our parents political positions and our education to the very language we speak and even our experiences with the physical environment form the very base of our percieved reality. Religion simply goes much further than any of these in affecting the way we think. The mere existence of an institutionalized church, even at its best, slows social progress just by encouraging faith instead of reason.

As to who: anyone. Absolutely any fucking nutcase with a smile and a big mouth can use ostensible divine inspiration and the idiocy of the churchgoing masses to gain immense power and wealth. John Edwards is one that pops to mind, as is Bush, but also the pope and any major clergyman. There is also the push to teach creationism, the pro-life movement, gay rights, stem cells etc.

As for blowing up buildings, you needn't worry :lol:. But don't incite me! :mad:

[HeWhoAsks]

No Christianity does not depend on our failures it just acknowledges them as a reality. We all have the benefit of the doubt from the get-go.
Original sin says nay.
Actually original sin says "by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life", and not of any ability to choose correctly or incorrectly.
I'll stand corrected. Although, now that I think about it, I could start another thread about what the lack of "complete mastery of his passions" might mean, but I'll save that for when we've worked through all the other issues (!).

[HeWhoAsks]

Sir
Either I'm doing something wrong or I'm getting to you if you call me "sir." ;)

you are a perpetual partial quoter
I agree, but see immeidiately below.

My arguments and responses to posts are not guaranteed to be valid when taken only in part. Please stop.
I find value in taking an argument apart (the whole is not right unless the parts are) as well as putting it all back together again (as difficult as that might be through the medium of a forum like this). Feel free to let me know when I've taken a part wrong, or put it back into the whole wrongly.

and it gets my goat.
The pale cartoon I alluded to was about "letting go of all reason" and doing that "only because it(the church) says it's the right thing to do.". Neither of those things are accurate portrayals of Christianity.
Righto. In my defense, however, it wasn't clear which part you were saying was the pale cartoon.

[HeWhoAsks]

So, enlighten me. Are you saying that the idea that if you believe in God you enter heaven when you die is not Christianity?
I am saying that is a partial view. I try not to post bunches of scripture but being as you asked, and seeing as how the short-hand descriptions I usually use are being questioned......

We're all sinners . . . .

There is a need to confess your sins. . . . .
Conspicuous by its absence is anything related to my point above, that is, the implicit quid pro quo in "believe in god" = go to heaven. You listed many things we "need" to do, but the word "need" only has relevance if there is some consequence (penalty, really) to not doing what is needed. These consequences are a crucial point to my point, and I did not see any consequences in your list.

[HeWhoAsks]

If you had a "relationship" with a human being in which the other person wrote a book that you liked, and you spoke to this person in your private thoughts, *no one* would call that a relationship.
Maybe this deserves a whole thread to itself. I admit I struggle to communicate this in a lucid way. But I'm willing to try if you at least cut me a little slack. Let me think about this one and how best to put it across.
No problemo. I think a new thread is a good idea.

[thomas]

In my view, religious beliefs which induces insecure feelings and acceptance of irrational concepts as a tangible reality, is nothing more than a form of neurological disease/aberration that affects the CREATOR of all our ideas, dreams, ideas and biological computer in commands of our bodies...our BRAIN.
If millions upon millions of seemingly sane and rational people are in fact unknowingly consumed by a neurological disease, then how can you be certain that you are not also subject to such a thing ? Maybe the person with the acceptance of irrational concepts is you ?

[peepnklown]

Whatever. Something of no intrinsic value. Worthless. You can dress up the bleakness of atheism all you like., it's still bleak. That doesn't effect its truth or otherwise, but still it's bleak.
Subjective, subjective, and subjective…:/

[The Judge]

In my view, religious beliefs which induces insecure feelings and acceptance of irrational concepts as a tangible reality, is nothing more than a form of neurological disease/aberration that affects the CREATOR of all our ideas, dreams, ideas and biological computer in commands of our bodies...our BRAIN.
Sorry to be pedantic, but like with a lot of what is considered mental illness, there is little or no visible physical evidence of pathology in the brain in the religiously devout over and above any other organic diseases they were sufering from anyway. The presence of physical pathology would point to a neurological problem, so religion cannot be said to be a neurological disease. It is however a psychological problem: a disease of the mind and of the soul. It is a psychological construct which is pathological, abused and uncontrolled in the majority of those who believe. There are however a startling amount of similarities between religious beliefs and behaviours and mental illness to the extent that it is often difficult to know where to draw the line between a belief, an over valued idea, an obssession or a delusion. Personally I think that religion is at best an over valued idea, at worst, a delusion. Simply put it is a belief which is unshakeable based on no or vey little evidence and is resistant to change in the face of contrary evidence.

If millions upon millions of seemingly sane and rational people are in fact unknowingly consumed by a neurological disease, then how can you be certain that you are not also subject to such a thing ? Maybe the person with the acceptance of irrational concepts is you ?
Careful thomas, sounds like relevatism your spouting - not exactly the staple philosophical diet of the xian!

[Blindwatchmaker]

Sorry to be pedantic, but like with a lot of what is considered mental illness, there is little or no visible physical evidence of pathology in the brain in the religiously devout over and above any other organic diseases they were sufering from anyway.

I'm not sure religious belief is a mental illness, though it does manifest the signs of it. Religion is a meme, it is spread by conditioning. When the cycle of conditioning is broken, the problems manifested will cease to exist.

That isn't to say that many theists don't have mental illness', but likelyhood is that they would have that illness without the existence of the meme of religion and likely turn to some other obsession.

[thomas]

If millions upon millions of seemingly sane and rational people are in fact unknowingly consumed by a neurological disease, then how can you be certain that you are not also subject to such a thing ? Maybe the person with the acceptance of irrational concepts is you ?
Careful thomas, sounds like relevatism your spouting - not exactly the staple philosophical diet of the xian!
I'm not supporting that view, just pointing out to calpurnpiso the logical consequences of his.

[thomas]

Yes, I'm sure :D.

If you considered secular humanism in its best light and concluded it was unreasonable, I would conclude...

Way to dodge my point, though.
Not trying to dodge, but you've still lost me. You're saying that if I consider humanism in its best light and conclude its unreasonable that therefore my Christian belief is shallow. I don't see how that follows at all ?

A humanistic atheist is the best Christian ? What on earth do you mean ? Doesn't a humanistic atheist reject Christianity ?

Are you sure that the idea of God is nothing more than an attempt to control people ? Are all practitioners of Christianity either trying to control somebody or being controlled ? Who are these people trying to do the controlling and what do they get out of it ? Careful with this line of thinking, next thing you know you'll be attempting to bomb government buildings before "they get you".
A humanistic atheist takes the message of love and instead of using it to spread religious propaganda and lies, tries to rid society of the idiocy and corruption that is at the heart of so many religious people and institutions.
Two questions. First, what is this "message of love" and where did it come from, and why is it the correct message from your perspective. What is it grounded in and based on ? Second, how come your "message of love" primarily involves being intolerant towards the religious beliefs and freedoms of others ?

Certainly you must understand that the way we behave is strongly influenced by the environment in which we were raised. Everything from our parents political positions and our education to the very language we speak and even our experiences with the physical environment form the very base of our percieved reality. Religion simply goes much further than any of these in affecting the way we think. The mere existence of an institutionalized church, even at its best, slows social progress just by encouraging faith instead of reason.
I don't agree with you here. You're making out that religion is somehow unique in this respect, but why not pick on some other common belief in your society like capitalism. Doesn't that share the same characteristics in terms of effecting the way we think ? Why not try and eradicate that with your "message of love". I think what you're really saying is that you want to keep the indoctrination of things you agree with and get rid of those you don't agree with.


As for blowing up buildings, you needn't worry :lol:. But don't incite me! :mad:
I actually do think your ideas of religious intolerance and a small elite determining what other people believe are dangerous views. You'd have got along just fine with Stalin.

[thomas]

So, enlighten me. Are you saying that the idea that if you believe in God you enter heaven when you die is not Christianity?
I am saying that is a partial view. I try not to post bunches of scripture but being as you asked, and seeing as how the short-hand descriptions I usually use are being questioned......

We're all sinners . . . .

There is a need to confess your sins. . . . .
Conspicuous by its absence is anything related to my point above, that is, the implicit quid pro quo in "believe in god" = go to heaven. You listed many things we "need" to do, but the word "need" only has relevance if there is some consequence (penalty, really) to not doing what is needed. These consequences are a crucial point to my point, and I did not see any consequences in your list.
Come on, is this a deliberate attempt to avoid my point. I've told you that Christianity includes the concept of repentance as well as belief in God in order to assure salvation. I showed you several Bible passages that confirm that. Particularly

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 3:19 ( Therefore don't repent and your sins will not be blotted out )

"I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Luke 13:3

Salvation = at least belief and repentance.

Now also, the other point that I showed, but that you ignored was that salvation involves a relationship to Jesus as your Lord. Implicit in this is that you willingly accept His authority and act according to His way. This also speaks against a gamed state-machine type God.

[HeWhoAsks]

Come on, is this a deliberate attempt to avoid my point. I've told you that Christianity includes the concept of repentance as well as belief in God in order to assure salvation. I showed you several Bible passages that confirm that. Particularly

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 3:19 ( Therefore don't repent and your sins will not be blotted out )

"I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Luke 13:3

Salvation = at least belief and repentance.

Now also, the other point that I showed, but that you ignored was that salvation involves a relationship to Jesus as your Lord. Implicit in this is that you willingly accept His authority and act according to His way. This also speaks against a gamed state-machine type God.
I think this all started back with:

Where Christians disagree is over the required behaviour of Christians. Some say that good moral behaviour is a part of the deal and lack of it puts in peril your status as a Christian. Others ( including myself ) say that moral behaviour is commanded by Jesus and want to act that way in gratitude for what He has done for us, but that its not required for salvation. I think the effect on behaviour is similar.
So you were focusing on your version of Christianity, and I was focusing on the other one in which other Christians disagree with your version of Christianity. So my comment

But you've just contadicted yourself. If god *doesn't* require moral behavior, then it really doesn't matter in any ultimate sense whether one is moral. You'll get into heaven just by believing. If you do whatever you want, god won't care as far as entrance into heaven is concerned. Is there some other concern that we should be wary of? Isn't entrance into heaven the real game? There's nothing stoping someone from loving Jeebus and being immoral. Even if you, Thomas, can't make those two things compatible, that doesn't limit anyone else from doing so.
isn't fair in one sense because I said *you* contradicted yourself, but you had said that *other* Christians, not you, thought belief was sufficient, but on the other hand, I also said *if* "god doesn't moral behavior." So I don't see any disagreement now.

I'm still left with how ambiguous god is when he inspires the bible such that millions of people disagree about pretty important aspects. Yes, humans are fallible, but surely god could have inspired the bible in such a way as to make it a whole lot clearer. This, therefore, makes me suspect whether god inspired the bible.

[whoneedscience]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread for a while
Two questions. First, what is this "message of love" and where did it come from, and why is it the correct message from your perspective. What is it grounded in and based on ? Second, how come your "message of love" primarily involves being intolerant towards the religious beliefs and freedoms of others ?
You know the Bible better than I, but I seem to remember Jesus saying "love thy neighbor" is the most important commandment. Now, if even you can accept that things like Genesis are figurative, then why not take the next step and see God himself as figurative, and take responsibility for your own actions.

I see some of the moral messages in the NT as very good, but not because they were supposedly divinely insipired, but rather because they seem to have worked, and can be independently validated through reasoning and the social sciences. I see the whole idea of a god as merely a way to get an uneducated society to bahave and be productive. Fortunately, however, secular law has taken over this niche.

I don't believe in infringing on the right to practice religion. Trying to ban religion in any way has only turned ugly in the past, and as much as I dislike religion I don't think anyone should have the right to so directly control the way people think.

You're making out that religion is somehow unique in this respect, but why not pick on some other common belief in your society like capitalism. Doesn't that share the same characteristics in terms of effecting the way we think ? Why not try and eradicate that with your "message of love". I think what you're really saying is that you want to keep the indoctrination of things you agree with and get rid of those you don't agree with.
Indoctrination is inevitable. We are an intelligent species that requires a nurturing environment to develop. I see religion as an evil because it encourages faith instead of intelligence. Capitalism encourages some evils, yes, but it is one of the best options we have concerning productivity and mutual benefit.

I think skepticism and critical thinking should be indoctrinated because untrained people have a tendency to make stupid decisions and draw conclusions without evidence (i.e. racism). This is especially evident in people trained to think religiously (i.e. creationism). If everyone could think reasonably and approach everything in a scientific manner, I think the world would be a much better place.

Science is valid; religion is not. Thus, a free market of ideas should not exist between the two. Call me an elitist, but not all ideas are created equal.

I actually do think your ideas of religious intolerance and a small elite determining what other people believe are dangerous views. You'd have got along just fine with Stalin.
I stongly supprt the ideas of the Constitution and the founding fathers on philosophical grounds and I'm not proposing any change. The fact is, the US has survived in spite of the idiocy of the American public primarily because of checks and balances. History has also shown that removing these systems causes serious problems and I would agree with no one who rules with such absolute power.

Thomas, do you support the Church and the Pope? I can see no better example of "a small elite determining what other people believe", and would be extremely interrested to know if there is any religious sect that has anything like a constitution or a bill of rights or any checks and balances system.

Nice jab with the Stalin thing, by the way. Not quite as powerful as calling me Hitler, yet it works rhetorically. Gets the old ire flowing.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread for a while
Two questions. First, what is this "message of love" and where did it come from, and why is it the correct message from your perspective. What is it grounded in and based on ? Second, how come your "message of love" primarily involves being intolerant towards the religious beliefs and freedoms of others ?
You know the Bible better than I, but I seem to remember Jesus saying "love thy neighbor" is the most important commandment. Now, if even you can accept that things like Genesis are figurative, then why not take the next step and see God himself as figurative, and take responsibility for your own actions.
...
Specifically, this would stem from Matthew 22:36, which says:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
There you go.

[calpurnpiso]

In my view, religious beliefs which induces insecure feelings and acceptance of irrational concepts as a tangible reality, is nothing more than a form of neurological disease/aberration that affects the CREATOR of all our ideas, dreams, ideas and biological computer in commands of our bodies...our BRAIN.
Sorry to be pedantic, but like with a lot of what is considered mental illness, there is little or no visible physical evidence of pathology in the brain in the religiously devout over and above any other organic diseases they were sufering from anyway. The presence of physical pathology would point to a neurological problem, so religion cannot be said to be a neurological disease. It is however a psychological problem: a disease of the mind and of the soul. It is a psychological construct which is pathological, abused and uncontrolled in the majority of those who believe. There are however a startling amount of similarities between religious beliefs and behaviours and mental illness to the extent that it is often difficult to know where to draw the line between a belief, an over valued idea, an obssession or a delusion. Personally I think that religion is at best an over valued idea, at worst, a delusion. Simply put it is a belief which is unshakeable based on no or vey little evidence and is resistant to change in the face of contrary evidence.

If millions upon millions of seemingly sane and rational people are in fact unknowingly consumed by a neurological disease, then how can you be certain that you are not also subject to such a thing ? Maybe the person with the acceptance of irrational concepts is you ?
Careful thomas, sounds like relevatism your spouting - not exactly the staple philosophical diet of the xian!
One must remember that the brain make us what we are and the vast majority of neurological disorder are idiopathic (the cause is unknown). Dawkins meme hypothesis is like a virus in a program, my hypothesis that religion is a form of a neurological disorder is the computer itself is faulty and unable to read the programs correctly. After all, the brain creates the mind with chemicals and electromagnetism. Isn't this a proven fact?
One must take into account that the ancient folks believe in a 'soul" which resided in the heart!. The organ thought we used for thinking. The brain during mummification was discarded. Those folks under religion-psychosis induced delusions firmly believe the mind is separate from the brain and the ethereal influences this organs performance. Alas, do they have any evidence of this? It seems, in their religion induced stupor, that they forget that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Couldn't a person who has ingested amanita muscaria and rye bread contaminated with claviceps purpurea ( ergot) create his own religion? It is evident and scientifically proven that these substances produce visions and distorts the way the brain perceives reality. Well, doesn't chemical imbalance in the brain give similar results distorting perceptions? Medical journals clearly indicate this....so, the acceptance of Jesus as son of god, that saves from the sin committed by a mud created man and his rib created woman when they accepted a fruit offered by a talking snake are not perception of the brain? Are they perceptions reflected on logic and reason...or aren't they similar in 'perception quality fine tuning' as those of a schizophrenia or schizoaffective affected brain?

Why accept the irrational delusions of Christianity as fact when there is this much more plausible explanation based on logic?:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

Which brain would accept the Christian delusions as fact, an schizophrenia infected one or the one that can not differentiate between fantasy and reality?

Which brain would accept Aliens living in Mars as fact:

One of a 12 year old. One of a schizophrenia infected. One under hallucinogens. One of a Christ-psychosis infected. One of a NASA scientist. Which one?

Which brain would accept Jesus as a resurrected godman and all of his amazing claims:

One of a 12 year old. One of a schizophrenia infected. One under hallucinogens. One of a Christ-psychosis infected. One of a NASA scientist. Which one?

One must always keep in mind the brain is us and the tool we use to create gods, concepts, ideas, dreams etc. Does the brain creates the concepts of the folks mentioned above or does it pick them up, like a radio receives waves, from the divine?

Couldn't the performance of the brain be affected by disease? I believe the thinking of Christians ( also others infected by religious psychosis as well) clearly demonstrates it. Till the cause of ALL neurological disorders is found, religious absurd irrationalities accepted as reality, can not be dismissed also as a form of mental illness. Their excuse is always "faith"...but what is faith but a way of thinking that is always inversely proportional to the knowledge and information of the person experiencing it, which always relies on the irrational with an absence of reason.

The fact is that Dr Persinger has clearly shown the workins of the brain can be influenced by eloctromagnetism. This is just the beginning of the research in the new science of neurotheology.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm

http://www.geocities.com/satanicus_2/GodHelmet.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrainqa.shtml


:lol:

[calpurnpiso]

Thomas wrote;

"I actually do think your ideas of religious intolerance and a small elite determining what other people believe are dangerous views. You'd have got along just fine with Stalin. "

Obviously you have forgotten Stalin as was Hitler and many others where brought up under pious Christianity infected families. Their Christ-psychosis made them grow up turning them into the pious "Christ-killer( Jews) exterminators they truly were. Their Christianity made them what they were...AHH, such a nice true Christians. They were NOT atheists, like the Christ-psychosis infected folks in their derranged delusional stupor ignorance believe. After all, didn't they follow in the paths of these fine Christ-psychosis infected folks that preceded them?:

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

AHHH..the pious Theophilus!...a true Christian, as pious as Hitler and Stalin.
from: http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/copts.html

"When Theophilus was made Patriarch of Alexandria in 391 CE, he displayed tremendous zeal in destroying ancient Egyptian temples. A wave of destruction swept over the land of Egypt. Tombs were ravaged, walls of ancient monuments scraped, and statues toppled. In Alexandria, the famous statue of Serapis was burned and the Serapeum destroyed, along with its library.
When Theophilus attempted to convert a temple of Dionysus in Alexandria into a church, rioting between non-Christians and Christians ensued, the former occupying the great Serapeum. The subsequent destruction of the temple was shamelessly advertised by Christians as symbolic of a great victory. It was a folly of fanaticism in the name of orthodoxy.
The same year (391 CE) saw the beginning of legislation that aimed to outlaw ancient Egyptian rites and to close the temples. The laws helped the fanatic Christians destroy other temples. "

It was not till ATHEIST Napoleon brought back to light the Egyptian civilization than lie buried for oved 1500 years because of Christian piety.

Of course the Christ-psychosis infected invaders of the Americas where not as bad as the "atheists" Hitler and Stalin...LOL....from:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_3_4.html

"In fact, it was not uncommon for indigenous people to perceive the Europeans as cannibals. In terms of cruelty, early Spaniards matched the mythical cannibals. The friendly people of the Caribbean islands were the first to experience this, being defenseless against Spanish weapons wielded with equal cruelty against children and women. The seemingly limitless thirst for blood of the Spanish was described in Brief Relation of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolom de las Casas, a Dominican friar who witnessed much of the carnage:
"... suddenly one of the Spaniards drew his sword, saying that he saw the Devil before him. Then a hundred Spaniards all drew their swords and began to cut them down like sheep, killing and disemboweling men and women, children and old people, all of whom had been calmly sitting and watching the Spaniards and their horses in amazement; and in a few moments not a single one of them was alive."
Spaniards such as las Casas eventually rejected the argument that they were saving the Indians from their own brutality. Even the spectacle of the Aztec human sacrifices seemed mild in comparison to the horrors of the conquistadors. The Bahamas, where Columbus first landed, was soon stripped of its beautiful, peaceful inhabitants. Las Casas wrote that a ship could find its way to Hispaniola, the site of Spanish gold mines, merely by following a trail of dead Indians thrown from the slave ships.
Las Casas was an admiring biographer of Columbus, but seemed to ignore the fact that Columbus bore great responsibility for the enslavement of Indians. "

AHHH..the belief in the absurd delusions induced by the Christian faith (christ-psychosis), to be reality, is not responsible for the actions of those pious Christian genocidal psychopaths slaughtering innocent, but pagan unbelievers, native Americans eh?....

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/crusade2.htm

AHH..the pious Crusades, where Hitler got must of his benevolent Christian ideals as well as Stalin...and they lasted over 270 years! It was the belief in the factual Jesus-ToothFairy that made these man act so piously insane for so long....catapulting the heads of the Christ-killers (Jews), and heretical Muslims and other 'so called Christians" (greek orthodox) over the walls of each city they besiege!..truly "sane" people.. ROTFLMAO.....:)

[MrsMoe]

I think religion can be for the morally weak... or it can bethe eaxact opposite... for those who feel the overwhelming urge to impose strict regulations on themselves because they like to feel self-rightous and pure.

[Nicole]

I think that the question of morally weak people joining the church to get moral guidance is assuming that the church providing morality. From what I've seen of churches, this is debatable.

The exclusion and judgement of anyone who doesn't fit into that religions' ideals is proof enough for me that morality is not to be found within a churches' walls.

The practices of dominating women in a lot of religions is another one.

Corruption of power in the priesthood....

Telling people that they will suffer in eternal torment for not strictly following the rules....

and so on.

I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral but the organizations are certainly not examples of ethical behavior.

[calpurnpiso]

I think religion can be for the morally weak... or it can bethe eaxact opposite... for those who feel the overwhelming urge to impose strict regulations on themselves because they like to feel self-rightous and pure.
Of course, but it is a FACT a religious belief system is the one who CREATES morality with its delusions IMPOSSING it on the people controlling them. Don't morality inducing religious beliefs systems accept delusions as if they were a tangible reality, defining what's good and what's bad?....not unlike the fear of a Boogey man controling the mind of a child creating a morality and a faith? Christianity's induced "morality" is not much different, since it is based in equaly absurd myths.

One must realize that a good Aztec morality was to offer a palpitating heart to a non-existent entity, it was a bad morality not to do so....and a good Christian morality of the 12th Century was to plunge a crusader sword, symbolic of the cross, into the bodies of the infidel Jew, Muslim and orthodox Cristian to spill their blood to "save" them from hell, while the Christian moral assasin would gain salvation and a most anticipated place in Heaven while surrounded by angels and the grace of the 'lord and saviour".

One must realize morality is relative to the state of mind of the people, culture and the century when it is applied. Good and Evil are also relative....:)

[overman16]

This is quite true. As Nietschze pointed out, it took centuries of torture to convince man to respect his fellows. The Golden Rule should be respected as self-evident, relying on human empathy, rather than on religious belief in miracles, ritual, and eternal bliss. I fear our religious friends are overwhelmed by the modern world, and are clinging to one book at a time as a kind of self-defense psychological mechanism. We should engage and challenge them, but never bow down to their desire that their "religious beliefs" deserve special treatment in the public schools, courthouses, public parks, football stadiums, etc.
We must insist that respect for the right to believe is not the same as respect for any particular beliefs. Once an idea is in the public square, it is subject to challenge and attack. Our religious friends must learn that a homogeneous religious culture can only be achieved in their Church. If they try to parade their specific faith throughout society, of course they will be confronted, and defeated, and they will get frustrated, and angry, etc. So what. They must learn the hard way. Soon enough, they will discover that the only way to achieve a monolithic faith-based society is to turn government over to self-acclaimed "Voices of God", as is the case in Islamic societies, which are abject failures but for the oil beneath them.

[ocmpoma]

"I think that the question of morally weak people joining the church to get moral guidance is assuming that the church providing morality. From what I've seen of churches, this is debatable."

I think a better way to put it would be 'morally weak people joining a church in order to be told what to think and do regarding morality'.

[thomas]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread for a while
Two questions. First, what is this "message of love" and where did it come from, and why is it the correct message from your perspective. What is it grounded in and based on ? Second, how come your "message of love" primarily involves being intolerant towards the religious beliefs and freedoms of others ?
You know the Bible better than I, but I seem to remember Jesus saying "love thy neighbor" is the most important commandment. Now, if even you can accept that things like Genesis are figurative, then why not take the next step and see God himself as figurative, and take responsibility for your own actions.
So, you're saying that atheistic humanism accepts the basic message and morality of the Bible and then builds on it ? Do I have this right ?

I could of course take God as figurative, but I don't because I think there is good evidence that He exists. I do take responsibility for my own actions. What makes you think I don't ?

I see some of the moral messages in the NT as very good, but not because they were supposedly divinely insipired, but rather because they seem to have worked, and can be independently validated through reasoning and the social sciences. I see the whole idea of a god as merely a way to get an uneducated society to bahave and be productive. Fortunately, however, secular law has taken over this niche.
So you're saying that the NT codified successful ways for humans to relate to each other ? I happen to agree with you there. I think that in order for me to believe your hypothesis that Christianity was invented to get uneducated society to behave and be productive, you'd have to show me who did the inventing and what their motivation was ? Also, how likely is it that people with such devious motives would come up with moral teaching that you regard so highly ?

I don't believe in infringing on the right to practice religion. Trying to ban religion in any way has only turned ugly in the past, and as much as I dislike religion I don't think anyone should have the right to so directly control the way people think.
I'm glad you think that way. On this basis I withdraw my Stalin comment.

You're making out that religion is somehow unique in this respect, but why not pick on some other common belief in your society like capitalism. Doesn't that share the same characteristics in terms of effecting the way we think ? Why not try and eradicate that with your "message of love". I think what you're really saying is that you want to keep the indoctrination of things you agree with and get rid of those you don't agree with.
Indoctrination is inevitable. We are an intelligent species that requires a nurturing environment to develop. I see religion as an evil because it encourages faith instead of intelligence. Capitalism encourages some evils, yes, but it is one of the best options we have concerning productivity and mutual benefit.
Exactly. You tolerate the indoctrination of capitalism into young minds because you think it is productive and harmless. I teach my children about Christianity for the same reasons. You can disagree with my assessment, but please don't try and tell me that you are absolutely, objectively, morally right about this issue.

I think skepticism and critical thinking should be indoctrinated because untrained people have a tendency to make stupid decisions and draw conclusions without evidence (i.e. racism). This is especially evident in people trained to think religiously (i.e. creationism). If everyone could think reasonably and approach everything in a scientific manner, I think the world would be a much better place.
Again, you're so arrogant to come out with these statements implying that you are the one thinking reasonably and everybody else is not.

Science is valid; religion is not. Thus, a free market of ideas should not exist between the two. Call me an elitist, but not all ideas are created equal.
This is just closed-minded. Can you prove that science is valid using scientific principles ? Or can you just look at the utility and say "look, it works" ?

[thomas]

Specifically, this would stem from Matthew 22:36, which says:
So are you also arguing that atheistic humanism's "message of love" is based on Christian moral teaching ?

[thomas]

Hi overman16, welcome to the RA

The Golden Rule should be respected as self-evident, relying on human empathy, rather than on religious belief in miracles, ritual, and eternal bliss.
Why is it self-evident that you should do to your neighbour what you would like him to do to you ? Isn't the evident rule something more like "do whatever suits your best advantage" and doesn't the golden rule impinge on that basic urge ?

I fear our religious friends are overwhelmed by the modern world, and are clinging to one book at a time as a kind of self-defense psychological mechanism. We should engage and challenge them, but never bow down to their desire that their "religious beliefs" deserve special treatment in the public schools, courthouses, public parks, football stadiums, etc.
I agree with you that Christianity doesn't deserve special treatment except for maybe if the majority of people in a society agree that that is the right thing to do. I'd also ask that others in a society didn't impinge on my right to express and hold my views.

[Philboid Studge]

Why is it self-evident that you should do to your neighbour what you would like him to do to you ? Isn't the evident rule something more like "do whatever suits your best advantage" and doesn't the golden rule impinge on that basic urge ?
I suggest that the Golden Rule does suit one's best advantage, particularly for people who take the long view. (Well, it would if it weren't so arrogantly self-centered. 'Why not 'Do unto others as you believe they would want done?')

[whoneedscience]

So, you're saying that atheistic humanism accepts the basic message and morality of the Bible and then builds on it ? Do I have this right ?
Well, only if you accept that Christianity had a moral monopoly over the entire Western World while most modern philosophy was being developed. There doesn't have to be a connection. If an independent and somewhat objective inquiry can come up with similar results, it can only vouch for their validy, though only on a point-by-point basis. Concepts like don't kill, don't steal, and work together with compassion instead of hate are good for everyone.

I could of course take God as figurative, but I don't because I think there is good evidence that He exists. I do take responsibility for my own actions. What makes you think I don't ?
Okay, okay, sweeping generalization towards which I have a tendency on the responsibility part, but I do see religion as very much an excuse for many people. I would say that you and lurker, if only by virtue of sticking around here for so long, are far more developed in your moral resposibility than the stereotypical theist from an atheist perspective, and I apologize for any personal attack. Beyond that, we clearly disagree in evidence for god's existence, but the one thing I cannot remember being adequately explained in our many discussions here is what exactly consistutes evidence for a being that is, by definition, supernatural and therefore outside the realm of the physical?

So you're saying that the NT codified successful ways for humans to relate to each other ? I happen to agree with you there. I think that in order for me to believe your hypothesis that Christianity was invented to get uneducated society to behave and be productive, you'd have to show me who did the inventing and what their motivation was ? Also, how likely is it that people with such devious motives would come up with moral teaching that you regard so highly?
Oh, not intentionally. I see religions as evolving, blind entities. Just as Natural Selection causes living things to fill niches when they appear, so does it force religions to occupy the gap between familiar interaction and secular government. Even if the writers of the Bible and founders of the Church had every evil intent imaginable, in order for it to last as long as it has it must be providing some sort of advantage to its followers and those evil parts would be weeded out. As it is, no respectable theist follows every law to the letter. With Christianity and the parables of the NT, this would be almost impossible to do successfully. Instead, religious people pick and choose which parts suit them best. Optimally, this can be greatly advantageous in every way, but often it is used for great evil. The problem, as I see it, is that there is little or no reasoning behind what one accepts as moral and immoral, as most all religions preach faith over reason.

Exactly. You tolerate the indoctrination of capitalism into young minds because you think it is productive and harmless. I teach my children about Christianity for the same reasons. You can disagree with my assessment, but please don't try and tell me that you are absolutely, objectively, morally right about this issue.
Do you also teach your children to be skeptical of the world around them, and not to trust what everyone tells them? Do you encourage them to learn math, science and the arts? How about avoiding bias? Does your religion teach them these things?

Under certain conditions I can accept teaching religion to the very young, and don't think there is ever such a thing as "absolutely, objectively, morally right", but I do think that some moral reasoning is better than others, and we must be mindfull of our inner desires and biases. I see no religion encouraging such a thing.

I think skepticism and critical thinking should be indoctrinated because untrained people have a tendency to make stupid decisions and draw conclusions without evidence (i.e. racism). This is especially evident in people trained to think religiously (i.e. creationism). If everyone could think reasonably and approach everything in a scientific manner, I think the world would be a much better place.
Again, you're so arrogant to come out with these statements implying that you are the one thinking reasonably and everybody else is not.
Perhaps. All I'm saying is get people to think. Too often, reasonable discussion breaks down to violence. This can happen in all kinds of people, but especially among the religious right. I would like to think that everyone is capable of being reasonable and to some extent intellectual when given the proper training and opportunity.

Science is valid; religion is not. Thus, a free market of ideas should not exist between the two. Call me an elitist, but not all ideas are created equal.
This is just closed-minded. Can you prove that science is valid using scientific principles ? Or can you just look at the utility and say "look, it works" ?
Science cannot be proven using science. It is a logical impossibility. However, I can point to the philosophical basis of science: the scientific method; repeatable experimentation; peer review; testable hypotheses, etc. I see nothing behind religion. If you could give me any anything you see as backing up the validity of religion as a whole, I would try to see your point.

[LogicMan]

This is just closed-minded. Can you prove that science is valid using scientific principles ? Or can you just look at the utility and say "look, it works" ?
Science is the act of defining existence and that which exists using objective
methodologies.
The statement Define science with science is contextually incorrect.
A person engaging in actions that are defined as science is doing something
“Science“ is not a physical thing...It is a word that defines particular actions.

[thomas]

Science is the act of defining existence and that which exists using objective
methodologies.
Yes, and the question is, are those objective methodologies valid ? Can you prove they are valid using science, or are you just making a pre-supposition that they are valid. Or is there some other method that proves science is valid and if so how do you know that method is valid. Or are you just saying that science is proven to have utility ?

The statement Define science with science is contextually incorrect.
A person engaging in actions that are defined as science is doing something
“Science“ is no