Ask an Atheist anything!

[Wiccan_Child]

The situation which is harmful to one may be a situation of holiness or benefit to another one. Again, there is no standard for that. The best you can say is: this works for me. You can not impose any of your value to anyone else.

Indeed not, however, my standard is constant. It doesn't change: once we are clear what the terms mean, its prescription of 'good' and 'bad' are rather constant.

Humanistic way takes the norm of everything among a population as a standard (such as the idea of democracy). However, that is not a standard to any individual who has his own idea.

Humanism most certainly doesn't take the norm and declare it good. Humanism says the dignity, worth, and wellbeing of humans is paramount. If the norm is a poor quality of life, then humanism says we should move away from the norm.

Atheism means there is not a single authority from anyone or anything. That means anything goes. No right or wrong and everything is gray.

"That means anything goes". Huh. That would explain why atheists, across the globe, are far more likely to commit rape and murder - oh, wait, they're not. Funny, that: despite your prediction, atheists are just as likely to behave morally (not raping, not murdering, not stealing) as theists.

Despite your armchair philosophy, atheists do indeed have a moral code. There isn't an overarching authority to give them that code, so instead they look to their own sense of morality, their culture and their societal duties, to give them a moral code. And, by and large, atheists come to the staggaring conclusion that rape is wrong - all by themselves!

 

[quatona]

Listen to yourself.

Ok. I have read my previous post out loud to myself.

It does not make sense.

Yes, it does.
I understand that it does not make sense to you - given your preconceptions and your personal idea of god.

If one has a god in his mind, then it is NOT anything goes. Instead, according to that god, many many things are not allowed go.

No - not all theists conceptualize god as a moral law giver. And pretty much no atheist conceptualizes the absence of a god as the license that "anything goes".

That is the basic difference between a theist and an atheist.

No, it´s the difference between persons who believe that "anything goes" and persons who don´t believe that "anything goes" - notwithstanding the reasons why they believe it.

 

[sandwiches]

"That means anything goes". Huh. That would explain why atheists, across the globe, are far more likely to commit rape and murder - oh, wait, they're not. Funny, that: despite your prediction, atheists are just as likely to behave morally (not raping, not murdering, not stealing) as theists.

I think this is the most important point in this silly tangent of Juve's. If religionists really have a better moral compass, are less likely to lie, cheat, murder, rape, etc, we should see atheists at the top of the crime charts, yet they are much lower than indicated by their overall population in prisons. Simply put, reality does not bear Juve's idea no matter how much he would like it to be true.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry people, I see no good argument in your replies.
I will respond when I see the next good one comes up.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Sorry people, I see no good argument in your replies.
I will respond when I see the next good one comes up.

It's not so much an arguement as trying to explain something (apparently) new to you.

 

[Cabal]

Sorry people, I see no good argument in your replies.
I will respond when I see the next good one comes up.

Monty Python - Run Away! - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think this is the most important point in this silly tangent of Juve's. If religionists really have a better moral compass, are less likely to lie, cheat, murder, rape, etc, we should see atheists at the top of the crime charts, yet they are much lower than indicated by their overall population in prisons. Simply put, reality does not bear Juve's idea no matter how much he would like it to be true.

That seems to be correct. But then again atheists tend to be better educated, so maybe it is just the uneducated who end up in jail, and the they tend to be more religious.

Also I might suggest that people who are serious about religion, for example churchgoing christians, may be less inclined to crime than people who merely "identify" in a vague way as christian but that's it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That seems to be correct. But then again atheists tend to be better educated, so maybe it is just the uneducated who end up in jail, and the they tend to be more religious.

Also I might suggest that people who are serious about religion, for example churchgoing christians, may be less inclined to crime than people who merely "identify" in a vague way as christian but that's it.

I think this is true. But the statistics show at least a correlation. As such, it has NOT be shown that atheism is a factor in driving crime.

Too, it should be noted that the parts of the US that identify as strongly Christian (such as the south, in contrast to, say, the northeast), have higher violent crime rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher poverty, etc. It is notable enough that Phillip Yancey in What's So Amazing About Grace reported some of those same statistics back in 1987.

These statistics repeat themselves when comparing the most religious countries to the least.

So what positive could be said about Christianity? I suppose we might guess that all those religious places with societal problems would be worse without Christianity and that those non-religious places would be better with it. Now there's something that is surely untestable.

The safest thing to say is that Christianity isn't a factor in reducing crime.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks for the link, will try and look at it later.

The safest thing to say is that Christianity isn't a factor in reducing crime.

For some people I agree. But I dont think its a universal rule if you are saying that. For some people it will influence their criminality in a more approved direction.

 

[razeontherock]

The safest thing to say is that Christianity isn't a factor in reducing crime.

The problem with this is that such statistics do not pertain to any one individual, and that is the level Christianity operates on.

 

[juvenissun]

The safest thing to say is that Christianity isn't a factor in reducing crime.

Crime is defined by human. Christian is not.
So, it is a mistake at the fundamental level in trying to correlate these two.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Crime is defined by human. Christian is not.
So, it is a mistake at the fundamental level in trying to correlate these two.

Not at all - we can easily correlate the variables "Number of people who claim to be Christian" and "Number of criminals", and even run comparison studies with membership of other religions.

Even if you protest that not everyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, even you have to agree that, of those who claim to be Christian, some genuinely are Christian. Therefore, we should still see a statistically significant decrease in criminality among the self-professed Christians - according to your theology, Christian-ness decreases criminality, and at least some self-professed Christians are, in fact, genuine Christians, so that demographic group should logically see a decrease in criminality.

So why don't we?

 

[juvenissun]

Not at all - we can easily correlate the variables "Number of people who claim to be Christian" and "Number of criminals", and even run comparison studies with membership of other religions.

Even if you protest that not everyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, even you have to agree that, of those who claim to be Christian, some genuinely are Christian. Therefore, we should still see a statistically significant decrease in criminality among the self-professed Christians - according to your theology, Christian-ness decreases criminality, and at least some self-professed Christians are, in fact, genuine Christians, so that demographic group should logically see a decrease in criminality.

So why don't we?

Only people who do not understand Christianity would make such correlation. It is fundamentally wrong. So the correlation is fundamentally meaningless.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Only people who do not understand Christianity would make such correlation. It is fundamentally wrong. So the correlation is fundamentally meaningless.

So.. How about telling us in what way it is fundamentally wrong?
Cause the only way out of this is to say that christianity fundamentally does not cause an improvement in moral behaviour. (If that is what you are saying, then I think i can agree with that )

 

[juvenissun]

So.. How about telling us in what way it is fundamentally wrong?
Cause the only way out of this is to say that christianity fundamentally does not cause an improvement in moral behaviour. (If that is what you are saying, then I think i can agree with that )

Glad you ask. The problem is that you are looking at the wrong direction of a subject. It is not about anything called "improvement".

The fundamental reason for a person to become a Christian is to admit his sinful nature, to accept the forgiveness, and to become sinless after his physical life. This does not bear any meaning of becoming a "less sinful" person on the earth. Physically, a Christian is a sinner until his death. Every Christian is struggling with his sinful acts in all his life. While an atheist may say: I have no sin, but a Christian will say: I am loaded with sin. You go to church not because you are sinless, but because you are sinful.

Any statistics on crime rate and Christian is superficial and can never be trustworthy. The attempt of correlating crime rate to Christian is a distortion and is out of context. The correlation has no practical and no theoretical meaning.

--------

Talk about reality, let me ask you a question: The communist China started to allow Christian worship in 1980, do you know why? They are atheists, and they won't do anything which is not "beneficial" to the communist ruling.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fundamental reason for a person to become a Christian is to admit his sinful nature, to accept the forgiveness, and to become sinless after his physical life. This does not bear any meaning of becoming a "less sinful" person on the earth. Physically, a Christian is a sinner until his death. Every Christian is struggling with his sinful acts in all his life.

No improvement whatsoever in life? Sinning less often is what we would mean by "less sinful", not sinlessness.

Any statistics on crime rate and Christian is superficial and can never be trustworthy.

I agree here.

Talk about reality, let me ask you a question: The communist China started to allow Christian worship in 1980, do you know why?

Why do you think they did?

They are atheists, and they won't do anything which is not "beneficial" to the communist ruling.

China, while still authoritarian in some ways, has been freeing up its society. This is probably part of a process of liberalization to accompany its economic liberalization.

But it hasn't been a smooth process. Thousands of Christians were imprisoned in the 80s and 90s.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. No one is saying that political change in a liberal direction isn't possible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[pdehart]

Is your eternal destiny worth gambling that you are right in not believing in Gods saving message in Jesus Christ. Eternity is a long time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is your eternal destiny worth gambling that you are right in not believing in Gods saving message in Jesus Christ. Eternity is a long time.

Yes, my integrity is beyond price.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Betting on infinity - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Or what if the game were jutst a leisure activity, with no end goal, no reward, no punishment?

You will still radicalised get atheists on your case trying to deconvert you.

Nice video btw. I like to use the abnalogy of "rationality (principles, procedured, heuristics etc) with form" when it comes to speculations about religion and metaphysics etc.