Why I'm not an Atheist

[john!]

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.

i don't understand what difference this makes?

christianity as a whole is beneficial. many individual parts of christianity are also beneficial. which of this do you disagree with?

 

[GwJ]

Stop changing your argument.

religious morals augment secular morals.

Is "religious morals" universal or particular?

 

[john!]

Stop changing your argument.



Is "religious morals" universal or particular?

any and all religious moral viewpoints would augment any and all secular moral viewpoints.

if that doesn't answer your question, why don't you give me examples of universal and particular, because clearly we aren't on the same page.

 

[GwJ]

Ok, now justify that.

edit: Going to bed now. I have class in less than 6 hours.

 

[Dre89]

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.)

Not to be a smartass, but considering what the OT God did to people who didn't love him I'd choose to love him too.

This God that wants you to love him is the same God that wants you to fear him. He says he wants you to choose to love him, but also wants people to fear rejecting him. That's not the behaviour of someone wanting to be chosen out of love.

 

[crawlshots]

Dre, I think there’s still a bit of confusion. Heaven is a central belief in Christianity, but loving God isn’t about going to heaven; loving God is about loving God. The reward for loving God is God.

Again, the Jews in the OT did not know about heaven. There was none of this quaint (and heretical, imo) talk of “asking Jesus into your heart” and receiving some kind of “once saved, always saved” eternal life package and being set for a comfy eternity. The practicing Jews knew that in their lifetimes, it was God’s way or the highway, and it was their joy to follow him. Btw there is more in the OT about God’s love, kindness, and mercy than there is about his anger or wrath, as there should be.

In the NT, Jesus talked about heaven some and revealed it in part to the apostle John in the book of Revelation, and thus the Western world is highly aware of this Christian concept called heaven, although I think most people don’t have a sound understanding of it at all. Yes, this has led to people choosing to label themselves as Christians because they want to go to heaven, but not actually living like a Christian… And I don’t think that such people will in fact go to heaven, because it’s likely that they haven’t accepted God’s gift of forgiveness, repented, and decided to follow him. But honestly, I don’t know anyone who is serious about their faith whose motivation is skewed to the point that they love God just because they want to go to heaven or want eternal happiness. When you actually love God, he gets you hooked and draws you in; and yes you want to go to heaven (a lot), but only because God is there and you have the option of being with him forever and enjoying him with lots of other people who want to be with him too.

When God revealed consequences of loving him or not loving him, he knew what he was doing. You say that the consequences take the place of God’s love as one’s motivation for being moral and loving God. I would say that if that’s true, then God’s love was never actually received or reciprocated in the first place, and there was never much of a Christian faith… and even so, God can still use the inferior motivation as a springboard into the superior one. The revelation of the concept of heaven didn’t create a new breed of people who don’t love God—such people have always existed. (Also, I believe that if you’re earnestly trying to love God then over time he helps you love him.) When Jesus and the apostle Paul talked about heaven, they were encouraging people who already believed in God. Heaven is encouraging to believers—again, not because it’s heaven, but because God is there and corruption isn’t. It provides hope.

There’s an element of reality for a Christian or Jew that the Bible calls the fear of the Lord, which is a healthy and invaluable element, and it’s hard for most to understand. It’s not like the gripping, debilitating fear that a little boy feels upon breaking a window as he awaits the return of his tyrannical father from work. It’s the stirringly painful awareness of how wicked and tiny I am compared to God, and how holy and big he is. This is what leads some people to seeing their need for him, to repentance, and ultimately into God’s love. It’s what’s keeping me from looking at porn right now, even though it’s late at night and I’m on my laptop and there’s no one around me. I know that God is watching me, and I have deep respect for him. “The fear of the Lord” and love for him are inseparably connected. If fear is your primary/only motivation for morality and hope, then you probably view God as a heartless tyrant, in which case you need a lot of love to understand who God really is. If attraction- and feelings-based love is your only motivation, then you probably view God as an over-colloquial pal who has a delightful smile no matter how much you sin, in which case you need a healthy dose of the fear of the Lord to understand who God really is.

Which brings me to your quote: “Not to be a smartass, but considering what the OT God did to people who didn't love him I'd choose to love him too.” Maybe, maybe not. Would you? Honestly think about it. I hope you would, my friend.

Regarding sex and Christianity: Well, firstly Dre I don’t understand how the need for food can be an accurate analogy for the desire for sex, but I want to understand, so until I see where you’re coming from I won’t respond to that specifically. Also, I’m sure sexual frustration is torturous for some, but I don’t believe I’ve ever experienced it. And I’m your textbook definition of abstinence before marriage. My body seems totally fine with it. If your body will automatically ejaculate periodically if you don’t stimulate it yourself (a point you brought up), then why is it that bad to not masturbate or have sex?


I care a lot about people understanding the Christian worldview; it's so poorly represented today. So I hope this helps. But FYI, I’m going to a wedding this weekend so I won’t be back on for a few days.

 

[Arcansi]

I'm just gonna randomly ask questions because there's no real topic I can latch on to, so whether these get answered or not here goes!

1. Does god hate/dislike gays? If so, why do we have things like Christians telling gays they're sorry and stuff?

2. Does the bible promote slavery?

3. Does god's plan for everything imply you have no choice in things, or that everything will be the same in the end no matter what?

4. If god is real, why do only certain cultures love him? Did he not create all the languages, and all the people? And as such, would he not have influenced them all equally? If so, why were we the only ones really affected?

5.

 

[john!]

you will get different answers for all 5 questions based on who you ask

as far as question 5, i personally think "able, but not willing" is most likely. more likely though is the idea that what we consider "evil" is not actually evil, and we cannot tell due to our short-sightedness and self-centeredness.

 

[Dre89]

The Bible definitely endorses slavery, and sexism. It says you can have a slave as long at isn't Hebrew. Males are to be released after 6 years, but females are never to be released.

God also burned a city of gays, and considers homosexuality one of the highest sins possible, rendering one unable to take communion unless they confess. To be fair he considers all sexual impurity to be of that level.

Crawl- Most of your post was just theology and erroneous reasoning.

Saying 'God must have wanted it, otherwise Christianity wouldn't exist' is completely fallacious, because you're assuming the conclusion to be true. It's possible that Christian faith is fallacious.

The reason why people want to be with him is because he rewards them
with happiness.

The fact that the body ejaculates for you if you don't do it shows how important it is to do it. Not only this, but the desire to ejaculate increases the longer you go without doing it, so it's basically telling you to do it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

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.

K, first of all, your first assertion is wrong. Here's why: take one stone. Now take another stone. Then put them in a pile together. Now how many stones do you have? Two. Exactly. The laws of mathematics are taken for granted all the time, and we keep forgetting that they, for the most part, have just as much grounding in empirical reality as the theory of gravity does. Almost all mathematical truths we have worked out have come directly from empirical analysis or application of what we already know.

Second of all, even if we take your assumption, if you're trying to use this to prove the existence of a god, then you're still ****ed. You know why? Two words: special pleading. "Why do the laws of the universe exist?" "Because god put them there." "Why is god there?" "...Because." See what I mean? It's a pointless, go-nowhere argument.

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).

O.o

Have we met, or have I just not been paying attention to you over the last while? I like this Dre way much more. ^_^

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

If I wanted to listen to some boring old man speak nonsense to me for a few hours, I would go back to my ethics classes. It's not necessarily an inconvenience, but more often than not...

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?

http://www.sexatdawn.com/

Some useful background reading. And furthermore, social bonds within a community ≠ monogamy/abstinence. Never heard of a swinger's party?

wtf kind of terrible christians say that kind of stuff?

Every single Christian who questions where Atheists get their morality without god. It's a lot of 'em.

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.

Except that that statement has nothing to do with what moral standards people have, but how well they follow them and how important those standards are. By all means, give me a study that shows a strong correlation between lack of religion and "immorality" by modern secular standards – something along the lines of "far more atheists commit felonies per thousand people". But simply claiming "atheists have less morality than christians" and backing it up by saying "Christians have a longer moral code" is ****ing ridiculous.

 

[GwJ]

And for the record, if christians followed all the morals of the bible, they'd be in jail.

 

[Oasis_S]

Isn't it funny when your typical Christian is asked what the ten commandments are, and they can only say "Uh... No killing and no stealing... No lying?" because none of the other commandments make any sense these days, and those two are also the only ones in pretty much any secular law.

I mean, most of them don't follow Christian morality anyhow because they understand, using their OWN, BETTER form of morality, that slavery, stoning unruly children, etc. is kind of just not cool.

 

[GwJ]

Those are generally the people that "True Christians" say aren't "True Christians."

 

[Muro]

And for the record, if christians followed all the morals of the bible, they'd be in jail.

exactly, our moral code has evolved despite of religion, not because of it.

 

[john!]

Some useful background reading. And furthermore, social bonds within a community ≠ monogamy/abstinence. Never heard of a swinger's party?

"social bonds" was referring to church attendance and not abstinence

Except that that statement has nothing to do with what moral standards people have, but how well they follow them and how important those standards are. By all means, give me a study that shows a strong correlation between lack of religion and "immorality" by modern secular standards – something along the lines of "far more atheists commit felonies per thousand people". But simply claiming "atheists have less morality than christians" and backing it up by saying "Christians have a longer moral code" is ****ing ridiculous.

correlation doesn't equal causation. if there is a smaller proportion of atheists in jail, it would probably be because the average atheist is smarter than the average theist, and is therefore less likely to go to jail.

And for the record, if christians followed all the morals of the old testament, they'd be in jail.

fixed

exactly, our moral code has evolved despite of religion, not because of it.

cute. i can't wait until someone makes a godless state, i'm sure everyone will be much more moral and there definitely won't be any mass executions or anything

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

correlation doesn't equal causation. if there is a smaller proportion of atheists in jail, it would probably be because the average atheist is smarter than the average theist, and is therefore less likely to go to jail.

So you'd reject that as evidence yourself? That's nice. Doesn't help the fact that you made a claim and are still failing to fulfill it. You're saying that christians are more moral. This neither follows out of the fact that they tend to have larger moral codes nor

cute. i can't wait until someone makes a godless state, i'm sure everyone will be much more moral and there definitely won't be any mass executions or anything

Except that the communist and fascist states weren't really godless – they simply had a very different idea of god. For all intents and purposes, the idea of the führer was their god. Stalin's/Lenin's/Mao's figurehead was basically all but a deity for the Russians, and the political dogma of Communism provided the equivalent of their bible.

Also, this isn't exactly pulled out of thin air. Our morality has moved forwards by ignoring religion, primarily in regards to things like civil rights, sexuality, and justice systems. In an unchanging dogma, there is no progress. Might wanna think about that one for a bit.

 

[GwJ]

And for the record, if christians followed all the morals of the old testament, they'd be in jail.

WOAH! Don't tell me you're one of those "Jesus abolished the rules of the Old Testament." kinda people. Because if you are, I have more problems about you than I already do.

 

[Oasis_S]

God is a stutterer. Had to get his word right the second time.

 

[john!]

So you'd reject that as evidence yourself? That's nice. Doesn't help the fact that you made a claim and are still failing to fulfill it. You're saying that christians are more moral. This neither follows out of the fact that they tend to have larger moral codes nor

so what you're saying is that disproving your viewpoint does not automatically prove mine, and therefore we both have burdens of proof. sounds familiar

Except that the communist and fascist states weren't really godless – they simply had a very different idea of god. For all intents and purposes, the idea of the führer was their god. Stalin's/Lenin's/Mao's figurehead was basically all but a deity for the Russians, and the political dogma of Communism provided the equivalent of their bible.

Also, this isn't exactly pulled out of thin air. Our morality has moved forwards by ignoring religion, primarily in regards to things like civil rights, sexuality, and justice systems. In an unchanging dogma, there is no progress. Might wanna think about that one for a bit.

wait... so now "god" = "anything people worship" and "religion" = "any ideology built around a god"? so man's desire to be a part of something greater and tendency to "follow the herd" is now redefined by you as "religion"

seems like you're blaming human nature (not actually religion) for humanity's problems. i agree! human nature sucks! but your labels for "god" and "religion" are even more of a stretch than most fundamentalists try to make to justify the old testament! try again please!

p.s. progress often happens despite religion, but regress and societal decay also often happen in the absence of religion. given your extensive knowledge of human nature, which of these two outcomes is more likely?

 

[Arcansi]

you will get different answers for all 5 questions based on who you ask

Then answer them for yourself. Also, isn't leaving something like that open to interpretation so easily really dumb if your trying to instruct someone?

as far as question 5, i personally think "able, but not willing" is most likely. more likely though is the idea that what we consider "evil" is not actually evil, and we cannot tell due to our short-sightedness and self-centeredness.

Is there any proof/theory behind this claim?

The reason why people want to be with him is because he rewards them
with happiness.

Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophecy? You want to be happy, believe you will find it, so you look for it to the ignorance of the sadness in your life.

 

[Muro]

fixed

if you pick and choose what's good and bad about the bible (or any other magical book), then it's not the bible that's teaching you, it's your evolved morality that's choosing what's acceptable and what's not.

cute. i can't wait until someone makes a godless state, i'm sure everyone will be much more moral and there definitely won't be any mass executions or anything

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.. but I'd like to remember you that religion has led to many many bloody wars in the past, and it's still used as an excuse to hate today (god hates **** and whatnot)

 

[john!]

if you pick and choose what's good and bad about the bible (or any other magical book), then it's not the bible that's teaching you, it's your evolved morality that's choosing what's acceptable and what's not.

there is a reason the bible is separated into two sections!

hint: it's not because one section conforms more closely to modern views on morality.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.. but I'd like to remember you that religion has led to many many bloody wars in the past, and it's still used as an excuse to hate today (god hates **** and whatnot)

if we can blame human nature for oppression under godless regimes, then we can also blame human nature for violence carried out in god's name. you can't have double standards here.

 

[Oasis_S]

What about violence carried out by god's will.

 

[Muro]

there is a reason the bible is separated into two sections!

hint: it's not because one section conforms more closely to modern views on morality.

what reason is that? how does that have anything to do with what I said? you are picking only the parts you want to pick, even in the new testament there's a lot of violence and irrationality, it's just that people have evolved and can tell that's bull.

if we can blame human nature for oppression under godless regimes, then we can also blame human nature for violence carried out in god's name. you can't have double standards here.

just because an atheist kills, doesnt mean he killed because he was an atheist. Same for religious people. Difference is, religious people have killed because of their god, or because the other people didn't believe in their particular god. It was motivated by religion. There was no war (as far as I know) motivated by a desbelief in god.

 

[john!]

what reason is that? how does that have anything to do with what I said? you are picking only the parts you want to pick, even in the new testament there's a lot of violence and irrationality, it's just that people have evolved and can tell that's bull.

i said that because you accused me of picking and choosing from different parts of the bible. i'm not picking and choosing, i'm saying that the new testament has a completely different ideological basis than the old testament, and for me to prefer one over the other is neither arbitrary nor the result of secular moral thought.

btw, there are problems with the new testament as well, but its moral code conforms much more closely with our modern code than the old testament's does.

just because an atheist kills, doesnt mean he killed because he was an atheist. Same for religious people. Difference is, religious people have killed because of their god, or because the other people didn't believe in their particular god. It was motivated by religion. There was no war (as far as I know) motivated by a desbelief in god.

do you think ti's unreasonable to believe that many non-religious criminals would not have become criminals if they were religious?

 

[Muro]

i said that because you accused me of picking and choosing from different parts of the bible. i'm not picking and choosing, i'm saying that the new testament has a completely different ideological basis than the old testament, and for me to prefer one over the other is neither arbitrary nor the result of secular moral thought.

what is it the result of then?

btw, there are problems with the new testament as well, but its moral code conforms much more closely with our modern code than the old testament's does.

how is it that you are able to identify problems in the new testament? Could it be that you are thinking for yourself, and the bible isn't actually teaching you anything? You are picking and choosing, and the bible has no say in it.

do you think ti's unreasonable to believe that many non-religious criminals would not have become criminals if they were religious?

I do, that's ridiculous.

 

[Alphicans]

It's definitely not ridiculous, but to purposely leave out the thousands of other alternatives to religion is ridiculous. Such as the many different ways to be raised in a household that isn't total ****.

 

[GwJ]

regress and societal decay also often happen in the absence of religion.

Regress and societal decay also often happen in direct correlation with religion.

cute. i can't wait until someone makes a godless state, i'm sure everyone will be much more moral and there definitely won't be any mass executions or anything

Well, Japan is largely secular with <15% of people believing in a god (Sacred High City, Sacred Low City By Steven Heine page 54).

there is a reason the bible is separated into two sections!

hint: it's not because one section conforms more closely to modern views on morality.

It's because they were written independent of each other, that's why.

if we can blame human nature for oppression under godless regimes, then we can also blame human nature for violence carried out in god's name. you can't have double standards here.

Sort of. We can blame humans for bad stuff under godless regimes because every decision they make comes from their own morality. For people who believe in a god-based regime, their decisions are made with consideration to the god. So even if the god is or is not real, their decisions are tampered by this "god".

i said that because you accused me of picking and choosing from different parts of the bible. i'm not picking and choosing, i'm saying that the new testament has a completely different ideological basis than the old testament, and for me to prefer one over the other is neither arbitrary nor the result of secular moral thought.

So what you're saying is they contradict each other? Good to know.

btw, there are problems with the new testament as well, but its moral code conforms much more closely with our modern code than the old testament's does.

That's called picking and choosing when you choose to adhere to one ruleset over another of equal value simply because you like it better.

do you think ti's unreasonable to believe that many non-religious criminals would not have become criminals if they were religious?

Yes. Why wouldn't they be? The vast majority of people in jail are religious, so doesn't that say that people are bad regardless of what they believe in? The motivations behind crime can change, but people are bad with or without god.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I also hear Japan (correct me if I'm wrong) has the least amount of gun shot incidents, and the police don't even carry them. Not entirely relevant, but still is a testament to how wholly much more civilized they are in general.

 

[GwJ]

I also hear Japan (correct me if I'm wrong) have the least amount of gun shot incidents, and the police don't even carry them. Not entirely relevant, but still is a testament to how wholly much more civilized they are in general.

Here's a comparison:

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime

Here's some notable statistics:

Murders with firearms: 47 (Japan) 9,369 (USA)
Prisoners: 69,502 prisoners (Japan) 2,019,234 prisoners (USA)
Prisoners > Per capita: 54.0 per 100,000 people (Japan) 715.0 per 100,000 people (USA)
Total crimes 2,853,739 (Japan): 11,877,218 (USA)

And for the lulz:

Software piracy rate 23% (Japan) 20% (USA)

Well, at least they pirate more than us. That's something.

 

[Arcansi]

John, why you ignore me?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

To be fair, the US has more prisoners than any other country.

 

[john!]

how is it that you are able to identify problems in the new testament? Could it be that you are thinking for yourself, and the bible isn't actually teaching you anything? You are picking and choosing, and the bible has no say in it.

if you're asking whether i personally have secular morality, then yes, i do. in fact i'd say that the vast majority of my morality is secular; i attend church a few times a year and rarely read the bible. that doesn't mean i can't recognize that religion has a valuable role in society.

Regress and societal decay also often happen in direct correlation with religion.

i can't take you seriously when you post graphs like this.

problem number 1, for starters: who are you to say that religion caused the dark ages, and was not a result of the dark ages?

problem number 2: there are no units on the ****ing y axis

etc.

for a "champion" of the scientific method, you show a surprising amount of carelessness with the way you present data

For people who believe in a god-based regime, their decisions are made with consideration to the god. So even if the god is or is not real, their decisions are tampered by this "god".

people are bad with or without god.

hmmmmmmm

John, why you ignore me?

sorry, i'll answer your questions (these are just my best guesses)

1. no

2. yes, some parts

3. i don't think so, but i'm not sure

4. i don't think god has such a direct influence on what humans do or think

 

[Chuee]

@John: It's funny how you say Religion is good for society.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/holy.html

 

[GwJ]

i can't take you seriously when you post graphs like this.

problem number 1, for starters: who are you to say that religion caused the dark ages, and was not a result of the dark ages?

problem number 2: there are no units on the ****ing y axis

etc.

for a "champion" of the scientific method, you show a surprising amount of carelessness with the way you present data

The picture was supposed to be a bit of light-hearted humor, but alright.

1. The dark ages caused the dark ages?

2. That's because it's a light-hearted, humourous, picture.

hmmmmmmm

Yes? I stated in the latter quote that people are good or bad without god. I stated in the former quote I state that "god" TAMPERS with peoples' morality. There's no contradiction.

sorry, i'll answer your questions (these are just my best guesses)

1. no

2. yes, some parts

3. i don't think so, but i'm not sure

4. i don't think god has such a direct influence on what humans do or think

1. Then why are christians having such issues with them?

2. Just say yes. He didn't ask how frequently.

3. This should be easier to answer. Given that god knows everything that will ever happen, do you have free will?

4. And yet he answers peoples' petty prayers?

 

[Arcansi]

1. no

I worded this wrong, I should have put 'does The Bible promote the hatred of gays? And yes it does.

So onto my second part of that question.

If so, why do we have things like Christians telling gays they're sorry and stuff?

2. yes, some parts

So yes. Does this not make any christian who does not promote slavery not a follower of The Bible?

3. i don't think so, but i'm not sure

See Above (GwJumpman)

4. i don't think god has such a direct influence on what humans do or think

So god can't influence what we do or think, but he says we should pray to him for his help?

This doesn't answer how, if god created and taught everything & everywhere, Christianity is so focused in one area of the world.

 

[john!]

The picture was supposed to be a bit of light-hearted humor, but alright.

1. The dark ages caused the dark ages?

2. That's because it's a light-hearted, humourous, picture.

no, a variety of factors caused the dark ages. an increase in religious devotion across europe was the result of those times, not a cause.

Yes? I stated in the latter quote that people are good or bad without god. I stated in the former quote I state that "god" TAMPERS with peoples' morality. There's no contradiction.

you said that god can change a person's morality, then go on to say that people are good or evil regardless of god. those are contradictory.

in response to the four answers:

1. because people are stupid.

2. yes. it's impossible to completely follow the bible because some parts contradict other parts. that doesn't mean that the bible has had no influence on societal morality, though.

3. lol. the free will argument is an entirely different debate. do some online research on the topic; anything i say here will be insufficient, and the philosophical community can't agree on an answer to this question. there do exist religions that allow for free will and an omniscient god.

4. i'm not sure why you guys are assuming i'm a christian apologist. i'm not. we are debating religion's role in society, not whether christianity is true or not. you may recall from earlier in the thread that i am an agnostic. my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The picture was supposed to be a bit of light-hearted humor, but alright.

1. The dark ages caused the dark ages?

I'm pretty sure the current consensus is not that the dark ages were caused by Christianity, but rather that they were caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The role, if any, that Christianity had to play was, in the worst case scenario, in making things somewhat worse and making it last somewhat longer. The dark ages were not, however, primarily caused by Christianity.

 

[GwJ]

you said that god can change a person's morality, then go on to say that people are good or evil regardless of god. those are contradictory.

I don't see the contradiction. Without god, people are good or bad. However, "god" can tamper with good people and make them bad "artificially" was what was said.

in response to the four answers:

1. because people are stupid.

So they have no biblical backing into what they are doing?

2. yes. it's impossible to completely follow the bible because some parts contradict other parts. that doesn't mean that the bible has had no influence on societal morality, though.

You made the argument earlier that all religion can augment all secular morality, so what this just showed is that what you said is false unless you disobey your holy book by replacing secular morals with them.

3. lol. the free will argument is an entirely different debate. do some online research on the topic; anything i say here will be insufficient, and the philosophical community can't agree on an answer to this question. there do exist religions that allow for free will and an omniscient god.

You still haven't answered it.

4. i'm not sure why you guys are assuming i'm a christian apologist. i'm not. we are debating religion's role in society, not whether christianity is true or not. you may recall from earlier in the thread that i am an agnostic. my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'm treating you like a christian apologist because you're acting like one. And I've already said that people aren't just agnostic. Either you're theist agnostic or atheist agnostic. You can't be unsure if you believe. Ask yourself if you believe. If you can't say yes, the answer is no. This is easier than you make it seem.

 

[Arcansi]

1. because people are stupid.

Okay, so people are stupid. Why do we have gay animals? They can't even act except based on their instinctual needs, and yet male animals are courting other male animals?

Because I mean, shouldn't Christianity be rebelling against this too?

2. yes. it's impossible to completely follow the bible because some parts contradict other parts. that doesn't mean that the bible has had no influence on societal morality, though.

Okay.

Wouldn't this also mean nobody is a christian because no one can truly follow gods word?

3. lol. the free will argument is an entirely different debate. do some online research on the topic; anything i say here will be insufficient, and the philosophical community can't agree on an answer to this question. there do exist religions that allow for free will and an omniscient god.

Except not christianity. Also, if omniscient = knows everything & = knows future, then wouldn't that mean it = no choice?

4. i'm not sure why you guys are assuming i'm a christian apologist. i'm not. we are debating religion's role in society, not whether christianity is true or not. you may recall from earlier in the thread that i am an agnostic. my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I was just asking questions, and you came off as one, sorry.

I'd like to ask these questions to a christian, but haven't yet.