Why I'm not an Atheist

[kataklysm336]

Been busy so haven't had time to fully reply, but Chuee covered what I would have said for the most part.

I would like to add that I'm not suggesting that we never ask why. That is the most important question. Rather, at some point "why?" becomes irrelevant, and "because it does" it the only acceptable answer (I'll elaborate in a moment)

Not true. The answer to those questions go further than that.

The reason why 1+1=2 is because the laws of mathematics deem it to be so. Without the laws of math, 1+1=2 is an unjustifiable statement. You may have trouble recognizing this as so, because when we think of something like math, we see it as an apparent truth, but that apparent truth is not necessary so. We have trouble distinguishing natural truths from contingent truths.

Right. But why do the laws of mathematics deem it to be so? That is the case, so there must be a sufficient reason why the laws of math deem it to be so. See, in this case "why" doesn't really apply. Those are the laws of math, and that is the end of it. There is nothing more to it.

For example, if I assert something ridiculous, like "water can be set on fire" what would be your response? Which would be a more accurate answer, "It's just wrong," or "It's wrong because the laws of physics don't allow it?" See my point? Saying "Because it does is insufficient for fully understanding any problem. All physical things are contingent upon some binding concept or law. Accepting them without attempting to explain them is not acceptable. That's why you have to push the question further and further back.

Again, the idea isn't to answer ever question with "because it does". Instead, you answer questions to their fullest potential. You seem to think there is no full potential and the asking of "why" never ends. There has to be evidence. In your example what if I asked "why don't the laws of physics allow water to burn?". Here you could explain that the right kinds of chemicals don't mix to produce fire, but that is answering "how the laws of physics don't allow for such activity". To say "why don't the laws of physics allow it?" seem irrational, as I feel it takes a teleological approach.

Side note: Does no one have any thoughts about my previous post? I'm very interested in hearing other opinions, as the matter I brought up is of much importance to my understanding of the universe.

I remember having some responses, and I agreed with a few of you points. Alas, I have been busy and that was a few pages ago so I didn't want to start discussing something old.

 

[GwJ]

As for defining time and space:

Time - the principal difference between "now" and "then"

Space - the principal difference between "here" and "there"

Y'know, there's no point in defining things when it clears up nothing. You said Time is the "principle difference" between "now" and "then". Ok, so what is the principle difference? Your definition can go in circles. Define it better.

 

[crawlshots]

Anyone wanna talk about good and evil? To anyone out there who doesn't believe in a deity, or believes in a deity that is neither good nor evil, what are your thoughts on the origins of such concepts? Open up my mind some more.

 

[john!]

the origin of human morality?

it's basically just another way to ensure the survival of our species

 

[GwJ]

Anyone wanna talk about good and evil? To anyone out there who doesn't believe in a deity, or believes in a deity that is neither good nor evil, what are your thoughts on the origins of such concepts? Open up my mind some more.

Good and Evil are just labels we give to actions that we deem to be beneficial or whatever the opposite of that is (I really can't think of the word, but you know what I mean).

Good and Evil aren't "things", they're labels.

And I still want Mura to define Time and Space accurately.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah a good and evil discussion probably wouldn't go too far. The only incentive really for people to believe morality "actually" exists is through some divine force claiming it is there. Otherwise, they are just words that we use to indicate behaviors with our personal feelings, there is no room for some objective ethics to be attached to anything like some sort of intangible force.

 

[crawlshots]

Let's forget about divine forces or intangible forces for a moment... yes, good and evil are labels and they are conceptual. Being a "label" doesn't equal a deficiency in meaning or importance.

Jumpman - FYI a good word for the opposite of beneficial is detrimental

John - why do you or I care about the survival of our species? Help me understand here.

 

[GwJ]

DETRIMENTAL. That's the word I was thinking of. Thanks

 

[Dre89]

The reason why religious people care about morality is so that they can get to heaven. They're doing it for a reward. That in itself isn't that moral.

 

[Sucumbio]

The reason why religious people care about morality is so that they can get to heaven please God. They're doing it for a reward because he commanded it. That in itself isn't that moral moral or immoral.

getatme.gif

 

[john!]

The reason why religious people care about morality is so that they can get to heaven. They're doing it for a reward. That in itself isn't that moral.

this is only under the assumption that self-interest is immoral.

would you consider it morally good for christians to go door-to-door, spreading their faith in an attempt to get other people into heaven? they are doing it out of selflessness, after all. it MUST be good!

 

[GwJ]

Well, when you take in consideration what they teach, it's against that particular moral thought. Christians are supposed to be good because they should be like Jesus, not because they'll get a reward. It's being moral for the wrong reason.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

What could be considered being moral for the right reason? It couldn't be for the sake of being moral, or is that what people think?

 

[john!]

Well, when you take in consideration what they teach, it's against that particular moral thought. Christians are supposed to be good because they should be like Jesus, not because they'll get a reward. It's being moral for the wrong reason.

this doesn't make any sense at all.

jesus was a preacher who spread his word. proselytizing is pretty much the same thing. would that make it good?

and how can one be "moral for the wrong reason"? do you believe that actions themselves have no moral value? or only actions that you personally agree with have the potential to be good? please elaborate.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

He means doing something that benefits others but ultimately for the ulterior motive of benefiting yourself. So as a result, you were only by happen-chance good to others. The doing good for yourself was the only actual goal, which most consider immoral.

 

[Dre89]

They want to please God because if they please him they'll go to heaven, where they get eternal happiness.

If there was no reward for pleasing God, or if being moral sent you to hell instead of heaven, Christiand wouldn't be motivated to be moral.

 

[john!]

hmm, so you really think there's no genuine empathy involved?

in that case, how can you explain atheists doing good, selfless things? are atheists intrinsically less selfish than theists? obviously THEY aren't doing it with the hopes of getting into heaven.

 

[GwJ]

I do good things because I care about the well-being of society and individuals as well as my self.

And of course there's general empathy. But doing good acts so you get in heaven is entirely selfish and sort of goes against what Christians are taught to be like.

 

[Dre89]

Christians exhibit selflessness because it's a virtue, and virtues get you into heaven.

I'm not saying that Christians are any less moral than anyone else, just that the Christian motivation for moral behaviour is itself not very virtuous, and virtue is related to morality.

It's much more virtuous to uphold morality for its own sake than for a reward. Christian morality is like a dog being well behaved to get a treat. If the dog knows he's not getting a treat, he has no motivation to be well behaved unless he fears punishment. His behaviour is simply a matter of utility, not virtue.

What makes it worse is that many Christians say atheists have no morals, or that if God doesn't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. They're basically saying morality only exists if this reward-punishment scheme is in place, and if it wasn't they'd have no motivation to behave morally.

 

[john!]

you make the mistake of believing that what motivates a christian to be good is totally different from what motivates an atheist to be good.

under your view, an atheist that converted to christianity would lose all of their virtue "for its own sake", and only do good things because of a fear of hell.

christian morality does not replace secular morality, it augments it. that's why religion has persisted for millennia across the world. it has benefits for society.

 

[GwJ]

There are a lot of Christians that would disagree with you that Christian morality augments secular morality as opposed to replacing it.

And for the record, secular morality has persisted longer than religious morality so your point is moot.

 

[Dre89]

you make the mistake of believing that what motivates a christian to be good is totally different from what motivates an atheist to be good.

under your view, an atheist that converted to christianity would lose all of their virtue "for its own sake", and only do good things because of a fear of hell.

christian morality does not replace secular morality, it augments it. that's why religion has persisted for millennia across the world. it has benefits for society.

The benefits in religious morality (eg. do not harm others) are in secular morality. Morality specific to religion (eg. sexual abstinence, going to Church) are actually either unhealthy or an inconvenience, so they are actually more detrimental than beneficial (this not taking into account the possibilty of whether the religion is true or not, it obiously has benefits if the religion is true, but we're talking about the impacts of religious morality separate from religious truth).

A converted atheists would still be virtuous because they demonstrated that they upheld morality for virtous reasons.

Christian motivations are different, because they accuse atheists of having no morality, or morality not existing if God doesn't exist. The fact they believe morality only exists if God exists shows that their only motivation is heaven. If it wasn't their only motivation, they wouldn't accuse atheists of having no morality.

 

[john!]

There are a lot of Christians that would disagree with you that Christian morality augments secular morality as opposed to replacing it.

And for the record, secular morality has persisted longer than religious morality so your point is moot.

oh it "makes my point moot"? why is that?

The benefits in religious morality (eg. do not harm others) are in secular morality. Morality specific to religion (eg. sexual abstinence, going to Church) are actually either unhealthy or an inconvenience, so they are actually more detrimental than beneficial (this not taking into account the possibilty of whether the religion is true or not, it obiously has benefits if the religion is true, but we're talking about the impacts of religious morality separate from religious truth).

abstinence and going to church are unhealthy or an inconvenience? really.

you don't think monogamy has non-religious benefits? you don't think that social bonds within a community are beneficial for the preservation of that community? or did you not think about that before you typed it?

Christian motivations are different, because they accuse atheists of having no morality, or morality not existing if God doesn't exist. The fact they believe morality only exists if God exists shows that their only motivation is heaven. If it wasn't their only motivation, they wouldn't accuse atheists of having no morality.

wtf kind of terrible christians say that kind of stuff?

if they said "atheists have less morality than christians" then they would be right, because religion gives people moral standards. in fact, i'm pretty sure that's what lots of christians DO say. their words are likely misinterpreted.

 

[GwJ]

oh it "makes my point moot"? why is that?

Because the justification you gave was flat-out incorrect, therefore the point you made is not justified.

abstinence and going to church are unhealthy or an inconvenience? really.

you don't think monogamy has non-religious benefits? you don't think that social bonds within a community are beneficial for the preservation of that community? or did you not think about that before you typed it?

I don't know if you've been around much, but sex is healthy for you. He also said nothing about monogamy. Going to church can definitely be an inconvenience too. It can cause you to lose hours at work for example.

wtf kind of terrible christians say that kind of stuff?

More than you know apparently.

if they said "atheists have less morality than christians" then they would be right, because religion gives people moral standards. in fact, i'm pretty sure that's what lots of christians DO say. their words are likely misinterpreted.

John, your ignorance is showing. Just because a secular lifestyle doesn't give you an absolute morality, that doesn't mean we don't have morality. We get our morality from reason and a weighing-out of the consequences of our actions. I have morals just as you do; I just have different ones.

 

[Chuee]

if they said "atheists have less morality than christians" then they would be right, because religion gives people moral standards. in fact, i'm pretty sure that's what lots of christians DO say. their words are likely misinterpreted.

He's talking about the more arrogant Christians who say that Atheists have no standard for morality since they don't believe in a god, therefore they are not morally good people.

 

[john!]

Because the justification you gave was flat-out incorrect, therefore the point you made is not justified.

details, my man, DETAILS!

you can't just tell someone they're wrong and not tell them how.

well you can, but it makes you a crappy debater.

I don't know if you've been around much, but sex is healthy for you. He also said nothing about monogamy. Going to church can definitely be an inconvenience too. It can cause you to lose hours at work for example.

nothing about monogamy?

do you know the church's position on abstinence? what is it?

John, your ignorance is showing. Just because a secular lifestyle doesn't give you an absolute morality, that doesn't mean we don't have morality. We get our morality from reason and a weighing-out of the consequences of our actions. I have morals just as you do; I just have different ones.

that's nice. religious people get their morality from that too, and they also get it from a code of morals formed from the collective mores of hundreds of societies and billions of people doing the exact same thing that you do.

 

[GwJ]

details, my man, DETAILS!

you can't just tell someone they're wrong and not tell them how.

well you can, but it makes you a crappy debater.

christian morality does not replace secular morality, it augments it. that's why religion has persisted for millennia across the world. it has benefits for society.

Your point is moot because secular morality has existed for even longer, so your point that there's a correlation between society's success and religious morality is moot. We did just fine before it and some can argue we're doing worse now.

nothing about monogamy?

do you know the church's position on abstinence? what is it?

Noun:
The fact or practice of restraining oneself from indulging in something.

Abstinence from sex is restraining oneself from having sex. The church teaches you that sex is purely for the purpose of making children and anything else is inappropriate. That's coming from my own priests.

That doesn't involve marriage directly.

that's nice. religious people get their morality from that too, and they also get it from a code of morals formed from the collective mores of hundreds of societies and billions of people doing the exact same thing that you do.

You know what you call morals that are achieved through the method I explained? SECULAR.
The morals you get from your holy book are the religious ones.

 

[Djent]

When you guys talk about "the church's position on abstinence," to which denomination are you referring? You can't talk sex without talking sects.

 

[GwJ]

I think we've been referring to the Catholic church for our examples.

 

[john!]

Your point is moot because secular morality has existed for even longer, so your point that there's a correlation between society's success and religious morality is moot. We did just fine before it and some can argue we're doing worse now.

saying we did "just fine" is a bit of an exaggeration lol. religious moral codes have been around for a long friggin' time.

furthermore, how does the fact that secular morality existed before religious morality imply that religious morality is not beneficial to society? that does not follow at all.

if it was detrimental to society, then the most successful civilizations throughout human history would probably not be religious. this is not the case at all.

Abstinence from sex is restraining oneself from having sex. The church teaches you that sex is purely for the purpose of making children and anything else is inappropriate. That's coming from my own priests.

That doesn't involve marriage directly.

and "making children" should only happen in marriage, according to church doctrine. even in your (or your priest's) extremely restrictive view of the church's teachings, it still concerns marriage. nice try i guess.

You know what you call morals that are achieved through the method I explained? SECULAR.
The morals you get from your holy book are the religious ones.

because holy books aren't re-interpreted and re-applied to society as that society changes by other means? if your theory was true, then the catholic church would still have the same moral teachings that they did in the middle ages. they don't.

religion both reinforces and adds onto the mores of a given society.

 

[GwJ]

saying we did "just fine" is a bit of an exaggeration lol. religious moral codes have been around for a long friggin' time.

Again, secular morals have been around longer, so I don't know why you bother bringing this up.

furthermore, how does the fact that secular morality existed before religious morality imply that religious morality is not beneficial to society? that does not follow at all.

Because you stated that there is a correlation between our successful society and religious morality with the reasoning being that religious morals have been around for a long time. Since secular morals have been around longer, that point does nothing to help your case.

if it was detrimental to society, then the most successful civilizations throughout human history would probably not be religious. this is not the case at all.

No one said religious morals as a whole are detrimental. Believe it or not, all societies had secular morals. They just added religious morals to the bunch so your correlation between the two fails again.

and "making children" should only happen in marriage, according to church doctrine. even in your (or your priest's) extremely restrictive view of the church's teachings, it still concerns marriage. nice try i guess.

But you should still have abstinence in marriage, correct? nice try i guess. There's a reason why the church doesn't support contraception.

because holy books aren't re-interpreted and re-applied to society as that society changes by other means? if your theory was true, then the catholic church would still have the same moral teachings that they did in the middle ages. they don't.

religion both reinforces and adds onto the mores of a given society.

I don't think you understand what I mean by religious morals are. Religious morals, as used in the context of my posts, are morals that are specifically unique to the religion's doctrine. "Be nice to people." is a secular moral for example. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (I know I butchered it) is STILL a secular moral. Want to know why? You don't need religion to understand that. People taking into consideration the feelings of others is something we've been doing longer than the bible has told us to.

 

[john!]

Because you stated that there is a correlation between our successful society and religious morality with the reasoning being that religious morals have been around for a long time. Since secular morals have been around longer, that point does nothing to help your case.

secular morals are also good for society. never said they weren't. you understand now?

No one said religious morals as a whole are detrimental. Believe it or not, all societies had secular morals. They just added religious morals to the bunch so your correlation between the two fails again.

you don't believe that they are beneficial... so clearly you think they are detrimental.

unless you believe that their net effect on society is EXACTLY ZERO, in which case lol

But you should still have abstinence in marriage, correct? nice try i guess. There's a reason why the church doesn't support contraception.

abstinence in marriage? did you go into super-troll mode? how would that even work?

I don't think you understand what I mean by religious morals are. Religious morals, as used in the context of my posts, are morals that are specifically unique to the religion's doctrine. "Be nice to people." is a secular moral for example. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (I know I butchered it) is STILL a secular moral. Want to know why? You don't need religion to understand that. People taking into consideration the feelings of others is something we've been doing longer than the bible has told us to.

religious morals have much in common with secular morals, but they are often more well-defined due to the fact that a religion as a worldview is more developed and concrete than the philosophical study of morality.

that still doesn't disprove my assertion that religious morals augment secular morals.

 

[crawlshots]

Guys, please read carefully. The idea of getting into heaven because of living a moral life, being a good person, being virtuous, etc. is not what Christianity teaches. In fact, it is flat out anti-Christian and leads to burnt out, miserable, performance- and duty-driven followers. I want you all to understand this. I feel like this is one of the most widespread misunderstandings of Christianity, among non-churchgoers and churchgoers alike.

Dre, your thought processes are sound, but you are fundamentally misinformed about some aspects of the Christian worldview. I want you to be better informed, and I figure you're the kind of person who'd appreciate the education.

They want to please God because if they please him they'll go to heaven, where they get eternal happiness.

If there was no reward for pleasing God, or if being moral sent you to hell instead of heaven, Christians wouldn't be motivated to be moral.

Methinks if a Christian's good acts are motivated by the prospect of going to heaven and avoiding hell, then they won't care about loving God, which is supposed to be the real motivation. Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, and his response was to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I'd say woe to the person who does not do the greatest commandment(s) issued by God himself.

Christians exhibit selflessness because it's a virtue, and virtues get you into heaven.

I'm not saying that Christians are any less moral than anyone else, just that the Christian motivation for moral behaviour is itself not very virtuous, and virtue is related to morality.

It's much more virtuous to uphold morality for its own sake than for a reward. Christian morality is like a dog being well behaved to get a treat. If the dog knows he's not getting a treat, he has no motivation to be well behaved unless he fears punishment. His behaviour is simply a matter of utility, not virtue.

What makes it worse is that many Christians say atheists have no morals, or that if God doesn't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. They're basically saying morality only exists if this reward-punishment scheme is in place, and if it wasn't they'd have no motivation to behave morally.

To correct your dog illustration, Christian morality according to the Bible is like a dog being well behaved because he actually finds the most pleasure in doing so, because he likes his master and he's realized that what the master has commanded is right.

I'm not one of those who says certain groups of people have no morality, but I am still very curious about what your ontological basis of "virtuous" is, and why you say that some motives are more virtuous than others. Does virtuous equal completely denying oneself, almost like asceticism? Is virtuous good?

The benefits in religious morality (eg. do not harm others) are in secular morality. Morality specific to religion (eg. sexual abstinence, going to Church) are actually either unhealthy or an inconvenience, so they are actually more detrimental than beneficial (this not taking into account the possibilty of whether the religion is true or not, it obiously has benefits if the religion is true, but we're talking about the impacts of religious morality separate from religious truth).

A converted atheists would still be virtuous because they demonstrated that they upheld morality for virtous reasons.

Christian motivations are different, because they accuse atheists of having no morality, or morality not existing if God doesn't exist. The fact they believe morality only exists if God exists shows that their only motivation is heaven. If it wasn't their only motivation, they wouldn't accuse atheists of having no morality.

The "sexual abstinence" notion of morality is actually closely related to the "do not harm others" notion. And for the record, the Christian God loves sex--he created it, and it wasn't some accident that it's so enjoyable--but he gives us boundary lines to do it the best we can. I think those boundary lines are actually remarkably healthy, and if I became an atheist tomorrow I'd still follow them because they just make a lot of sense to me. And I wouldn't say that going to church is "moral"... it's helpful for Christians though, depending on the church (lol).

When Christians say that morality exists only if God exists, usually they only mean that God is the source of ultimate truth, good, love, etc. and that those things can't objectively exist without a transcendent, all-creating God.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I have been skimming this, but I think a lot of what people mean when they say, "Doing good to get into heaven" aren't people that don't love God, they refer to people who do, but what they mean is that they wouldn't be all that interested in loving and praising God if there wasn't a heaven, that you just kind of died and never met God. Most people wouldn't find much motivation in loving God if the Bible never said you could never meet God or go to Heaven or Heaven doesn't exist. Although, most Christians or whatever denomination, will likely say otherwise, but they are in a bit of a biased or blinded position when saying that. At least, I think that is what people mean when they say that.

 

[GwJ]

secular morals are also good for society. never said they weren't. you understand now?

You're implying the reason for our society's success is religious morals. However, since we've had secular morals longer, your point is unjustified. That's all I'm saying.

you don't believe that they are beneficial... so clearly you think they are detrimental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

unless you believe that their net effect on society is EXACTLY ZERO, in which case lol

Oh, you. You make me giggle sometimes.

abstinence in marriage? did you go into super-troll mode? how would that even work?

You did read the definition of abstinence, right? Abstinence is restraining oneself from indulging. Nowhere does it say you cannot do the activity.

religious morals have much in common with secular morals, but they are often more well-defined due to the fact that a religion as a worldview is more developed and concrete than the philosophical study of morality.

Can you elaborate?

that still doesn't disprove my assertion that religious morals augment secular morals.

For clarification, is "religious morals" talking about a universal or a particular? By that I mean, are you referring to the entirety of the christian moral system or the non-entirety (some)? If you're referring to just some, then so what? If you're talking about the universal, justify that.

 

[Dre89]

Crawlshots- Christians with sex are like anorexics with food, so no that is not healthy.

I could understand saying 'you should only have sex with someone you'd be willing to have kids with' but the ban on masturbation or any sexual release is just plain unnatural and unhealthy. It's been shown that abstinence causes sexual frustration, which in turn has negative effects. In fact, ejaculation is so important to the body that if you go extended periods of time without doing it, the body will automatically do it for you, similar to how the body excretes waste. Ejaculations also trigger endorphin releases, which are beneficial to the body.

I'm not saying to bat off 8 times a day, but ejaculation should be treated the way any other biological desire gets treated; when the biological desire comes, you heed to it. It's the same thing with food. It's unhealthy to constantly eat or to constantly abstain from eating, you eat when you get the biological desire to (hunger) which usually comes when the body needs it and when it's good for the body.

A Christian whose motivation is heaven does care about loving God because that's what gets them into heaven.

If God wanted the motivation for morality to be morality's sake, and not heaven, then he either shouldn't have stressed how important it is to be good to make it to heaven so much, or should have just kept heaven quiet, and surprised them when they die.

It's common sense. If you want someone to choose to love you, you do not offer consequences either way, otherwise those consequences become the motvation (or are likely to). If you want someone to choose to love you, you don't offer eternal happiness as a reward and eternal suffering as punishment (at least you don't let them know about it at the time of the choice) because then those factors become the motivation, not the love.

Given the Christian God's supposed motives and supposed actions, he either doesn't exist, or is incredibly illogical on many fronts, which basically means he doesn't exist anyway because the Christian God isn't meant to be irrational therefore the God would not be the Christian one.

 

[john!]

You're implying the reason for our society's success is religious morals. However, since we've had secular morals longer, your point is unjustified. That's all I'm saying.

i never said it was THE reason.

i said it was A reason.

Can you elaborate?



For clarification, is "religious morals" talking about a universal or a particular? By that I mean, are you referring to the entirety of the christian moral system or the non-entirety (some)? If you're referring to just some, then so what? If you're talking about the universal, justify that.

the whole is the sum of its parts. i believe that the net effect of christian morals, when applied to society, will usually be good. that, in part, justifies christianity's presence in our culture.

 

[crawlshots]

I have been skimming this, but I think a lot of what people mean when they say, "Doing good to get into heaven" aren't people that don't love God, they refer to people who do, but what they mean is that they wouldn't be all that interested in loving and praising God if there wasn't a heaven, that you just kind of died and never met God. Most people wouldn't find much motivation in loving God if the Bible never said you could never meet God or go to Heaven or Heaven doesn't exist. Although, most Christians or whatever denomination, will likely say otherwise, but they are in a bit of a biased or blinded position when saying that. At least, I think that is what people mean when they say that.

This was a helpful paragraph, thanks. I want to emphasize the distinction between wanting to go to heaven for the sake of going to some idealized ethereal place called heaven (whatever that looks like in one's mind) and going to heaven to be with God. Heaven isn't the ultimate good, God is. Also, the Jews of the old testament loved God with hardly any clue as to what would happen after death. They wanted to love and obey God for the sake of loving and obeying God during the time they knew they had, and honestly I want to be more like that. (btw this isn't specifically addressed to you Holder, but to anyone.)

 

[GwJ]

the whole is the sum of its parts. i believe that the net effect of christian morals, when applied to society, will usually be good. that, in part, justifies christianity's presence in our culture.

Ok, now you've altered your argument. The "usually" in there turns this into another "so what?" You simply did that to avoid having to justify your claim. Without altering my words, state whether you're taking it as universal or particular, please.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I see what you mean; unfortunately, I have harder time imagining today's society being like that. Makes me think of all of the Christians I know who don't remind me of what Jesus was like/probably like. But since I can't really provide any evidence towards motivations, I'll just concede on that point. Just thought I'd possibly elucidate one thing I spotted recently. Carry on.