Evidence behind the new testament.

[ballin4life]

We know those happened, it's not up for debate.

This is exactly my point.

If we apply a criteria of "first-hand knowledge" then we don't know these things happened, and any reasonable criteria should reflect the fact that we do know that these things happened.

 

[GwJ]

Please note: reasonable.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

oh my goodness Nicholas hahahah


Also I don't see how atheism has any moral doctrine or dictates how one should act. Hhow is it possible to use atheism to justify behavior?

 

[Dre89]

Atheism is used to justify the rejection of religion and theological morals.

 

[GwJ]

Lol Dre. You need to stop being so biased and hateful towards us.

U jelly?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

You can't use atheism to justify anything. Atheism is the LACK of theological doctrine. I don't see how you can use NOTHING to justify anything.

Unless you want to explain this to me.

 

[Dre89]

Lol Dre. You need to stop being so biased and hateful towards us.

U jelly?

What are you talking about, that was a completely neutral statement. Atheists do reject religion and morals based on their atheism, that's not an insult at all.

 

[GwJ]

Please read Slickback's post, Dre. I'm starting to question your intelligence.

 

[Dre89]

So if a person's disbelief in God is not what they're using to reject theism, what are they using?

Maybe I'm giving atheists too much credit here, but I always thought they rejected theism because they had a lack of belief in the existence of a God.

Your point is moot. If atheists don't use the above to justify their rejection of theism, then they must use some form of belief to reject theism, and in rejecting theism you become an atheist, so then atheism becomes a belief anyway.

 

[GwJ]

I know what it means, just stop making atheists sound like fifth graders faking sick to get out of school. It's only a bad excuse to do something if it's the right thing to do and you don't know that.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

And now you are making moot points as well. Even if I granted you that atheists use atheism to reject religion, what would this prove? I stated earlier that atheism had no MORAL doctrine and thus had no direct bearing on people's behavior. Atheism does not tell you to do anything, so you cannot use it to justify your own actions.

For some reason, you think your statement provides some sort of rebuttal to this point? You basically state that atheism tells you to reject religion and thus be an atheist. Well thank YOU Mr. Tautology for your excellent input on this subject.

 

[Dre89]

Exactly, it was never meant to be a criticism of atheism at all. I was just pointing out that to say that atheists don't use their atheism as justification to reject certain ideas is wrong.

 

[GwJ]

We don't use it as justification. If anything, it's quite the opposite. I could just as easily say religious folk use their religion as justification to do whatever it is they do that not everyone agrees with.

 

[Dre89]

You don't seem to understand that it wasn't a criticism of atheism.

X doesn't go to mass because he doesn't believe in God or religion, that's his justification for not going, that's all I'm saying.

 

[GwJ]

What was your purpose for the post then Dre?

 

[1048576]

Woah, back up G-Dubs. Just read through this page again. Dre's not being hostile or anything.

Anyway I'm not sure you need any sort of doctrine to justify inaction. I think not going to church is the default position. But beyond that, atheism is a characteristic, not a moral guideline. For example, Dre, what can you justify with theism (read: not Christianity specifically)?

 

[GwJ]

Sorry 'bout that, I read his post as being an intentional insult.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how it could be an insult, seeing as all I'm saying is that not believing in God is the reason why people reject religion.

104- Christianity would justify the practice of Christianity, encouraging Christian-orientated laws, moral stances, rejection of anti theism etc.

 

[1048576]

Okay, but what does theism justify?

 

[Dre89]

The stuff I said.

It would justify the implementation of a theocracy, or a law system which guides one towards what is perceived to be good, as opposed to modern ones which just stop us from doing bad things. That's just one example.

 

[GwJ]

I don't see how it could be an insult, seeing as all I'm saying is that not believing in God is the reason why people reject religion.

104- Christianity would justify the practice of Christianity, encouraging Christian-orientated laws, moral stances, rejection of anti theism etc.

I just took it wrong. The way you meant it wasn't meant to be offensive, and it isn't. The way I interpreted it as was.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

The stuff I said.

It would justify the implementation of a theocracy, or a law system which guides one towards what is perceived to be good, as opposed to modern ones which just stop us from doing bad things. That's just one example.

That's just the thing.

Good is defined in a theocracy as what God wants and you cannot honestly tell me that people will always truly carry out what "God desires," only what they perceive as God's desire.

I hate to bring up generic examples, but the Crusades push this point in perfectly. Theocracy just does not make sense as a practical system of government.

This thread got derailed.

 

[Dre89]

But corruption will occur no matter what the system. The behaviour of people is not a reflection of the ideology.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Alright, let me tackle the crusades here. What happened with the crusades is that catholic priests were "selling forgiveness". You see, in order to make an extra buck, the catholic church would go "Oh, donate 500$ to church X for forgiveness!" (There is absolutely NO justification for this in the Bible, by the way. The catholics teach good works is necessary to get into heaven, which is completely counter to the Bible's doctrine of grace, and the main reason I don't consider the catholic church Christianity.) Anyway, the way this ties into the crusades is that the bishops and stuff were saying "Go on the crusades, instant forgiveness, period!". And the people going on the crusades took that to mean that they could behave however they wanted without penalty, leading to all sorts of immorality and evil acts. So you see, the thought process and reasoning behind the atrocities of the crusades were from distinctly catholic, not Christian motives.


As a side note, I'm confused about the "atheism = lack of belief" thing. I always thought "atheism = belief there is no God", as that's how I've always seen the word used (for example, vs "agnostic", who isn't sure if there's a God.) Anwyay, if "atheism = lack of belief", two things.

1) How do you want me to judge atheism?

and

2) By that definition, Hitler and Stalin and such were still atheists, so I fail to see how this changes anything.

 

[Dre89]

Nicholas, why do you assume the Bible is the ultimate authority, considering it was assembled by Catholics, who are in your eyes corrupt and have deviated away from God's word?

I fail to see how the Bible could be the word of God if it came from a corrupt and deviated source.

 

[GwJ]

Atheism= lack of belief in God. (without god)

Anti-Theism= belief there is no god (against god)

 

[Spire]

History is an agreed upon fable.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Nicholas, why do you assume the Bible is the ultimate authority, considering it was assembled by Catholics, who are in your eyes corrupt and have deviated away from God's word?


I fail to see how the Bible could be the word of God if it came from a corrupt and deviated source.

The corruption crept in over time. The Bible was assembled around 3rd or 4th century, the crusades and such were MUCH later. Additionally, you can examine the evidence behind each book individually. Every book in the new testament today was written by 100 AD, and they all preach the same message, which is the real test of authenticity. The false gospels that were excluded didn't start until the second century, and it's easy to spot the problems with them by comparing them to the originals. If we were to discover a new gospel dating from the first century, with teachings that lined up with the rest the Bible, and references from the early church agreeing that they authors were correct in writing it, then by all means, add it in.

@Gwjumpman
Okay, although I've never heard that definition outside of here. Just change every mention of "atheism" to "anti-theism" then, as it's really directed at those who say "There is no God."

@Spire
Are you insulting historians in general, or just Christianity?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

well golly gee Protestants have clearly been the driving force for peace in this world, considering they slaughtered countless Native Americans, stole their land, took countless Africans under completely inhumane conditions, forced them into slave labor, and facilitated one of the most shameful practices in all of United States history.

 

[Savon]

well golly gee Protestants have clearly been the driving force for peace in this world, considering they slaughtered countless Native Americans, stole their land, took countless Africans under completely inhumane conditions, forced them into slave labor, and facilitated one of the most shameful practices in all of United States history.

The question then is whether or not that is the fault of the Protestant belief system as an enitity, or just followers who were corrupted and lost their way.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

That's not the question at all. The Protestant belief system is no different than that of any other religion's. I was making a point to Nicholas that it's not only stupid but hypocritical to belittle and invalidate the Catholic Church because of their past actions, because Protestants have done heinous acts as well.

 

[Savon]

Oh ok I see what you mean. However the point about the Protestant faith can still be extended to the Catholic faith as well. Is the Catholic faith as a whole to blame for events such as the crusades, or just the people who lost their way from what the true meaning of the faith was?

 

[Dre89]

Protestantism is unique in that their source of doctrine was assembled by a supposedly faulty body.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

As a side note, I'm confused about the "atheism = lack of belief" thing. I always thought "atheism = belief there is no God", as that's how I've always seen the word used (for example, vs "agnostic", who isn't sure if there's a God.) Anwyay, if "atheism = lack of belief", two things.

This should clear things up as to the lack of faith vs no faith.

 

[jaswa]

Protestantism is unique in that their source of doctrine was assembled by a supposedly faulty body.

No, our doctrine was assembled ourselves. What you mean is our scriptural text being compiled (not written) and it wasn't faulty at the time

 

[Dre89]

You know what I'm going to say- that we know the Church held the same views before the Bible as it does now, we have historical evidence of it. So if Catholicism has deviated, it deviated before the Bible.

Secondly, I don't see how you would be able to tell how thru deviated from considering they put together what they supposedly deviated from.

And no you wouldn't have assembled it yourselves, because you wouldn'thave omitted the exact same texts the Catholics did. Also, you would have no criteria for choosing what to omit. Regardless, these Scriptures were initially preached by Catholics.

No matter which way you look at it, your theology was put together by a faulty body. Had the Cath Church never existed, there's no way Christianity would be so huge, and there's no way we'd have a compiled library of doctrine.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see how it could be an insult, seeing as all I'm saying is that not believing in God is the reason why people reject religion.

This is completely false. There are plenty of other reasons to reject religion (in the sense that most people mean when they say religion).

The stuff I said.

It would justify the implementation of a theocracy, or a law system which guides one towards what is perceived to be good, as opposed to modern ones which just stop us from doing bad things. That's just one example.

I don't think theism justifies this at all. Just because a God exists doesn't mean that there is some objective good.

But corruption will occur no matter what the system. The behaviour of people is not a reflection of the ideology.

Sure, but religion generally leads to more corruption since it promotes an objective standard of morality. Once you convince someone that God wants something/they're going to heaven if they do it/hell if they don't, it's awfully easy to get them to take action.

So you see, the thought process and reasoning behind the atrocities of the crusades were from distinctly catholic, not Christian motives.

That's easy to say when there was no Protestant church at the time.

As a side note, I'm confused about the "atheism = lack of belief" thing. I always thought "atheism = belief there is no God", as that's how I've always seen the word used (for example, vs "agnostic", who isn't sure if there's a God.) Anwyay, if "atheism = lack of belief", two things.

1) How do you want me to judge atheism?

On its merits based on the arguments presented, I suppose. How do you judge a religion (note: NOT saying that atheism is a religion at all)?

2) By that definition, Hitler and Stalin and such were still atheists, so I fail to see how this changes anything.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Hitler and Stalin were both European, so therefore we should get rid of all Europeans, right?

The difference is in what religion drives people to do.

 

[Dre89]

This is completely false. There are plenty of other reasons to reject religion (in the sense that most people mean when they say religion).

I never said it was the only reason.

I don't think theism justifies this at all. Just because a God exists doesn't mean that there is some objective good.

The point was assuming that a particular religion is true, meaning that an objective good would exist. So if Catholicism is true, then there would be an objective morality.

Sure, but religion generally leads to more corruption since it promotes an objective standard of morality. Once you convince someone that God wants something/they're going to heaven if they do it/hell if they don't, it's awfully easy to get them to take action.

But that's not the religion convincing them, that's people of religious authority abusing their authority to convince other people that the religion says X, when it really doesn't.

The only time such corruption comprimises a religion is if the religion states that its offices will never be corrupt, or that their diety entrusts its offices with divine authority, so whatever they say goes.

Catholicism says neither.

That's easy to say when there was no Protestant church at the time.

Slam.

The difference is in what religion drives people to do.

There's a difference between leaders deceivingly using religion as a justification for what they're doing, when really their motives lie elsewhere, and the motives being genuinely religious. Most cases of wide-scale corruption by religious bodies are the former.

 

[ballin4life]

I never said it was the only reason.

I figured, but the way you phrased it - "not believing in God is the reason why people reject religion" - made it sound like the only reason.

The point was assuming that a particular religion is true, meaning that an objective good would exist. So if Catholicism is true, then there would be an objective morality.

Ok, one of the beliefs contained within "Catholicism" is that there is an objective morality. I'm not sure what this is meant to show.

Also the post I quoted seemed like a response to the question:

Okay, but what does theism justify?

which is about theism, not catholicism.

But that's not the religion convincing them, that's people of religious authority abusing their authority to convince other people that the religion says X, when it really doesn't.

The only time such corruption comprimises a religion is if the religion states that its offices will never be corrupt, or that their diety entrusts its offices with divine authority, so whatever they say goes.

Catholicism says neither.

There's a difference between leaders deceivingly using religion as a justification for what they're doing, when really their motives lie elsewhere, and the motives being genuinely religious. Most cases of wide-scale corruption by religious bodies are the former.

Which is going to have more corruption and abuse of power, a theocracy or a secular government?

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Ballin
Communist russia was set up by Atheists, while the vast majority of our founding fathers were Christian (or theist of some sort). So, you can't just blatantly imply that a religion-based government is automatically more corrupt than a secular one.

The way I judge a religion would be based on its doctrine. However, with such a broad definition of "atheist", that would mean atheism doesn't really have a doctrine, which makes it more difficult to judge.

Anyway, the point behind the hitler/stalin/atheist thing is that you can't just dismiss Christianity because of the crusades any more than you can dismiss atheism because of those madmen.

@Dre
I might be mistaken about this, but didn't the catholic church claim that the pope was infallible?