Another question for atheists...

[non-religious]

I'm no longer a Christian, but when I did have faith, one of things that gave me a sense of both peace and hope was the thought of an afterlife in heaven. There was a sense of everything will one day be perfect. It wasn't until I started to look more comprehensively at my beliefs, the Bible etc... that I found myself having to circumnavigate many moral obstacles. Some of which were increasingly difficult to ignore.

What I have come to realise, some 16yrs later, is that my hope, peace and sense of well being wasn't solely because of my very real faith, but because of my intrinsic humanity. With no faith in my life now, I can look back over my 16yrs as a believer and see that I still possess that same level of hope and peace and well being, perhaps even more so now, without having to defer to a faith or a mandate of some form.

I appreciate the fact that Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc... can get a that sense of hope and that they can be driven by their faith to live good, moral lives. I can too. I'm now just able to do it without the confines of a faith. Hope for an after-life is very important to many people. Just not me because I no longer believe in one

 

[ianb321red]

I'm no longer a Christian, but when I did have faith, one of things that gave me a sense of both peace and hope was the thought of an afterlife in heaven. There was a sense of everything will one day be perfect. It wasn't until I started to look more comprehensively at my beliefs, the Bible etc... that I found myself having to circumnavigate many moral obstacles. Some of which were increasingly difficult to ignore.

What I have come to realise, some 16yrs later, is that my hope, peace and sense of well being wasn't solely because of my very real faith, but because of my intrinsic humanity. With no faith in my life now, I can look back over my 16yrs as a believer and see that I still possess that same level of hope and peace and well being, perhaps even more so now, without having to defer to a faith or a mandate of some form.

I appreciate the fact that Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc... can get a that sense of hope and that they can be driven by their faith to live good, moral lives. I can too. I'm now just able to do it without the confines of a faith. Hope for an after-life is very important to many people. Just not me because I no longer believe in one

I'm sorry to hear this - it must be a difficult situation for you to deal with?

I don't personally think of my Christian faith as a quest for morality; far from it to be honest. Morality in my view is something that often defined by "man" in order to position themselves psychologically in relation to a.n other phenomena.

You've referred to your "intrinsic humanity" but this is of course the very thing Christianity is proposing to save us from i.e. from our intrinsic bias towards sin.

We can of course achieve good things in our lives that affect others - no question about that. But the unavoidable problem that seems to happen is that this ends up making feeling people like they and they alone can make the world a better place. This can frequently lead to people feeling proud about themselves having "done good" rather than helping people for no personal gain or satisfaction.

Christians "doing good deeds" and knowing that they cannot earn salvation or a "ticket in to heaven" do good things to help others motivated by the actual helping involved in itself and for the benefit other others.

It's not about morality; it's about giving unselfishly to other people. The problem with concept of morality is that it often puts a barrier up between man and God and one that is used by man to judge themselves rightly or wrongly.

I just think it is a shame you've elected to measure God/ Christianity in moral terms - you've used a man-made moral framework to measure it's own creator!

 

[Skavau]

Ok, we can go round and round in circles if you want, but at some point you need provide some actual substance for your assertions...

Delighted to. Just not sure what assertions it is you think I'm making without substantiation. Your questions are not clear sometimes. They don't seem to follow context.

You've claimed Christianity is incorrect because it is wrong.

Uh, no. You lost complete track of that statement and the context behind it.

You asked, originally:

For example, why would people go on the offensive versus the historicity of Jesus? Why attempt to undermine the authenticity of the bible?

I replied:

Because those atheists believe that Christianity and Islam are not only incorrect but harmful to society.

You then seemed to think that me answering your original question about why people argue aggressive against religion meant that I was trying to argue against it at that point. You literally tried to change the topic at a whim. If you want to hear my reasons for thinking Christianity as incorrect, then just say so. I won't go into massive detail because this isn't really the thread for it.

So I've simply asked you to explain what is wrong or why Christianity is incorrect.

Yes, you did although you did so in a very strange way. You did so in response to answer I gave to a different question.

Is that really too much to ask, given that you've chosen to visit the forum and post on this thread?

See above.

So stop evading the question - it's perfectly coherent to anyone who can read/ understand English.

I'm evading nothing. Your inability to understand context and phrase questions in bizarre ways is not my fault.

But at the moment that is purely conjecture because you haven't actually provided any kind of reason and/ or explanation for anything you think, feel, believe or disbelieve about pretty much anything.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, by the way.

Straw man . Try again.

NB - do you actually have any arguments that aren't based on misrepresenting your opponents position?

Straw man? I hardly think so.

Is eternal punishment disproportionate for temporal sins?

My thoughts on this:

1) Only eternal punishment will suffice sins against the eternal God.
So while it may only take an instant to kill someone, the deserved punishment is life in prison.
No sin can be tolerated as long as God exists, because He is eternal, punishment for sin must also be eternal.

You are on record directly supporting the use of eternal punishment for effectively not being Christians. Or have you changed your mind suddenly? That would be the only way it would be a strawman.

 

[Skavau]

What you're saying here is just so completely immoral and cruel to be honest.

Why? I'm saying exactly what it is you believe. I'm playing it back to you with the only judgement of mine being that it is harmful.

You're suggesting that Christians, knowing what they believe about judgement, hell and eternal torment should keep QUIET about it!

No, I am saying that you believe and support the eternal punishment of all non-believers for not being Christian. This is not a false statement. You might try to save people from that fate but when it comes down to it, should someone die unsaved you would approve of their eternal torment.

It would be harmful if we DIDN'T tell anyone else about this and warn them!

That's not what I'm arguing about specifically. I'm pointing out that by endorsing a system that will by consequence of design cause billions of innocent people to suffer eternal punishment you are in fact, endorsing a wicked thing. You may very well warn people against it and how you think they can avoid it but you still endorse its existence.

It is tantamount to someone in a dictatorship warning people to not speak out against the government or join a banned opposition party. That they warn against it would not absolve them from moral responsibility in supporting that dictatorship.

Can you not understand the absurdity in what you're implying? It's like suggesting to someone who had the cure for cancer to not let anyone else know about it.

That's not what I'm implying. Yet I can use that analogy. In your world-view we all have by default 'cancer' or the taint of sin, if you like. In your world-view God does have a solution but chooses only to allow people who accept a questionable world-view on faith to be cured from it, or cured from the consequences of it.

No - it is disgusting that people (albeit it minority) try to suppress and repress the ability for people to decide for themselves about religion and any other beliefs.

Yes, it is. Persecution is always wrong.

What you're describing here is ardent censorship aimed at inculcating people in to an extreme minority viewpoint such as you're own; in fact it's a form of extremism which is in fact more dangerous than anything remotely associated with Christianity.

Excuse me, what censorship am I describing? Who have I argued ought be silenced?

You take the moral high ground by referring to children which is disgusting on your part; thinking you somehow know better than all other parents who are raising their children in a loving and caring way and in accordance to their beliefs religious or otherwise..

I consider it easy to take the moral high ground against a parent who would tell their children to be Christian or Muslim because otherwise they will be burned for eternity in the afterlife. What a thing to tell your child. What a system to support.

 

[non-religious]

[ianb321redI'm sorry to hear this - it must be a difficult situation for you to deal with?

Thanks But I'm not quite sure what you're referring to? There's no difficult situation. On the contrary, it's actually liberating.

I don't personally think of my Christian faith as a quest for morality; far from it to be honest. Morality in my view is something that often defined by "man" in order to position themselves psychologically in relation to a.n other phenomena.

I disagree. One's own sense of morality is incredibly important in re to faith, and you'll be hard pressed to find a Christian who wasn't on a quest for some sense of morality. It was never the be all and end all of my faith, but it was a very important part.

You've referred to your "intrinsic humanity" but this is of course the very thing Christianity is proposing to save us from i.e. from our intrinsic bias towards sin.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. You're effectively restrained to think and act in certain ways. Sin is only applicable if you believe in it.

We can of course achieve good things in our lives that affect others - no question about that. But the unavoidable problem that seems to happen is that this ends up making feeling people like they and they alone can make the world a better place. This can frequently lead to people feeling proud about themselves having "done good" rather than helping people for no personal gain or satisfaction.

I would guess that there are a lot of people who who do good without making a display of it or because they want a smug self-satisfying feeling at the end of the day. You seem to be implying that only those with faith can do good without seeking personal gain or satisfaction. That is patently false.

Christians "doing good deeds" and knowing that they cannot earn salvation or a "ticket in to heaven" do good things to help others motivated by the actual helping involved in itself and for the benefit other others.

Their faith compels them. So it's not as altruistic as perhaps seems.

It's not about morality; it's about giving unselfishly to other people. The problem with concept of morality is that it often puts a barrier up between man and God and one that is used by man to judge themselves rightly or wrongly.

Why should it put up a barrier? God should endorse morality and applaud it's use. Those who live their lives according to a set of morals, but have no reliance or instruction from a deity have surely demonstrated an equally, if not more profound level of humanity towards all. You shouldn't have to rely on an external spiritual source to help your neighbor in need or forgive your attacker. If it takes a faith to help you do that, then great, but for many it is not a prerequisite.

I just think it is a shame you've elected to measure God/ Christianity in moral terms - you've used a man-made moral framework to measure it's own creator!

There is a slight irony here, because if I used a man-made moral framework to measure God, he would fail miserably. Yet just a cursory glance at the OT or certain aspects of the NT illustrate a morality from God's perspective that is an almost impossible thing to achieve. In fact, so stringent were the requirements and brutal the failings, that many today have a hard time reconciling the God of the Bible with traits that encompass fairness, goodness, equality and justice for all. I'm not entirely convinced that man-made morality, when implemented correctly, is such a bad thing.

 

[Gadarene]

Ok, but you're avoiding my original question.

What exactly am I doing right now as a Christian that is harming any aspect or element of society?

Repeating wrong ideas, for one.

 

[apocalypto]

Repeating wrong ideas, for one.

Look into the mirror. That's a hypocrite you see staring back.

 

[apocalypto]

I'm no longer a Christian..........

And somewhere someone is enjoying a Toffee Crisp!

 

[Gadarene]

Look into the mirror. That's a hypocrite you see staring back.

Reread the quote, champ. Judging the ideas, not the person

 

[King Mob]

Reread the quote, champ. Judging the ideas, not the person

There are no mirrors where he comes from. They host the evil eye.