Ask an Atheist anything!

[juvenissun]

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

I agree here

Why do you think they did?

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

"improvement" or not is not the question. If there were improvement, congratulation. If not, it is not a blame. For a Christian, some behaviors are gradually changed to a certain degree. But some would remain until death. There is no guarantee that any of these behaviors will NOT lead to a crime.

Communist China not only allowed open Christian worship, but they allowed Christian activities in college campus. Why do they want to do that? Of course it is a policy that will help them to maintain their regime. What is the mechanism of that? I think it is not hard to figure out. Human right and libration are among the least of their considerations. The arrest of a few Christian leaders proved that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

Your objection is meaningless without qualification. Do you agree that at least some self-professed Christians are genuine Christians? Do you agree that Christianity at least partially lowers criminality in at least some instances?

Your claim is that Christianity lowers criminality, yet we can directly measure both, and see no correlation. Instead of saying, "Oh, you just don't understand", how about you get off your high horse and teach us unwashed masses?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

You're right that it's a gamble, and the gamble is a lot like the lottery: there are innumerable different bets we could make, but we can only afford a single ticket. The odds of winning are slim to none, so why take the gamble at all? Instead of wasting your single coin on a gamble that you're extremely unlikely to win, why not spend your valuable resource on something worthwhile instead?

In case it wasn't clear, this was an analogy for life. You have one life, and there are a thousand and one religions, all telling you that you will burn forever and ever unless you believe in The True Religion and get Eternal Life. The problem is that each religion claims that it is The True Religion - so which one do we bet on?

So it certainly is a gamble. There are many bets we could make, but I instead choose to walk away from the table with my money in my pocket.

 

[juvenissun]

Your objection is meaningless without qualification. Do you agree that at least some self-professed Christians are genuine Christians? Do you agree that Christianity at least partially lowers criminality in at least some instances?

Your claim is that Christianity lowers criminality, yet we can directly measure both, and see no correlation. Instead of saying, "Oh, you just don't understand", how about you get off your high horse and teach us unwashed masses?

I gave you one challenge: the case in China.
What is your answer to that?

 

[Buy Bologna]

Your username is deceptive. If you want people to value your opinion then don't flatout BS them.

If atheist really believe that the bible isn't needed for good morale (for example, not lying) then prove it.

Well in my oppinion he doesnt, because he doesnt exist. Its all a matter of the players playing. I find it very Arrogant to assume that any of the teams would get some divine favor at all.

I think any logical christain knows better myself. I do think Tebow is a good guy other than his public display.

It's not arrogance, it's humility.

If you read your bible you would know that he is actually arrogant and according to jesus a 'hypocrite.' Your familiar with the 'lords prayer' im sure. (Matthew 6:9-13). Well read that in context a lil more for me and start at verse 5.

Tebow is young tho and still IMO a good model citizen.

Ok. Here's a good sub-topic:
"what are your thoughts regarding abiogenesis?"
I'd like to know what you think.

?
i will look into this. never heard of it. sounds interesting.




I honestly didn't look at all the pages. i couldn't help myself had to comment on what i read so far. Plus, im trying to get myself up to 10 post so i can start threads myself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I gave you one challenge: the case in China.
What is your answer to that?

I don't understand the 'challange'. What "case in China"? The terrible record of human rights? The enforcement of 'One Child'? The enormous population?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your username is deceptive. If you want people to value your opinion then don't flatout BS them.

If atheist really believe that the bible isn't needed for good morale (for example, not lying) then prove it.

1) An atheist can exhibit moral behaviour (not lying, not raping, not murdering, etc) without appeal to, or even knowledge of, the Bible.
2) There is no step two.

Proof complete.

i will look into this. never heard of it. sounds interesting.

It's the idea that simple chemicals (ammonia, sulphur, hydrogen, oxygen, etc) can spontaneously form more complex organic molecules (amino acids, etc), which are the building blocks of modern biological life - in other words, the theory that 'simple' chemicals can spontaneously and independantly form living systems, given the right conditions (conditions which it so happens were prevalent on early, pre-biotic Earth).

I honestly didn't look at all the pages. i couldn't help myself had to comment on what i read so far. Plus, im trying to get myself up to 10 post so i can start threads myself.

I believe there are 'number' threads where you just post consecutive numbers. It gets one's post count quite high rather quickly - just ask our resident record-holder, AV1611VET.

 

[The Nihilist]

God I hate Tebow. I hate him with the fire of a thousand suns. (UGA fan )

 

[Eudaimonist]

Communist China not only allowed open Christian worship, but they allowed Christian activities in college campus. Why do they want to do that?

I have already given my reply. Read my previous post. It's there.

If you want a contributing cause, it may be this:

What is your opinion on why the Chinese government made that decision?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I have already given my reply. Read my previous post. It's there.

If you want a contributing cause, it may be this:

What is your opinion on why the Chinese government made that decision?


eudaimonia,

Mark

As you illustrated, Chinese government would give no real concern to human right. Their only concern is to stabilize the society and to hold on their regime.

To revive Christianity will help on one of their major goals: To reduce crime rate. Particularly, open Christianity to college students might deal with the crime problem from its root. The consideration is very simple:

Allow Christian worship and fellowship: It gives people some freedom, which is negative to the communist totalitarian regime.

Christianity will reduce crime rate: This is the main purpose.

According to their calculation: the positive effect overweights the negative effect.

Chinese are not stupid. This calculated policy set by a government certainly illustrates the effect of religion on social stability. Needless to say that they are willing to take the risk for it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As you illustrated, Chinese government would give no real concern to human right. Their only concern is to stabilize the society and to hold on their regime.

No, my point was that the Chinese government had to give up some power under the threat of rebellion. This Wikipedia article is informative:

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, the individual in the photograph was not to my knowledge a criminal in anything other than the political sense.

Christianity will reduce crime rate: This is the main purpose.

Do you have any evidence that the Chinese government believed this, and that this was the main reason for being more tolerant of Christianity?

What I see, from Tiananmen, is that there was a growing movement in favor of the liberalization of Chinese society. The government had to relax its iron grip somewhat in order to avoid an outright rebellion. As the Chinese government allowed liberalization, greater religious freedoms were permitted. I'm not aware of any evidence that they thought that permitting Christianity would somehow create sheep that wouldn't stand in front of tanks, if that is what you were thinking.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

No, my point was that the Chinese government had to give up some power under the threat of rebellion. This Wikipedia article is informative:

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, the individual in the photograph was not to my knowledge a criminal in anything other than the political sense.



Do you have any evidence that the Chinese government believed this, and that this was the main reason for being more tolerant of Christianity?

What I see, from Tiananmen, is that there was a growing movement in favor of the liberalization of Chinese society. The government had to relax its iron grip somewhat in order to avoid an outright rebellion. As the Chinese government allowed liberalization, greater religious freedoms were permitted. I'm not aware of any evidence that they thought that permitting Christianity would somehow create sheep that wouldn't stand in front of tanks, if that is what you were thinking.


eudaimonia,

Mark

A policy could have millions of explanations on its reason.

The main religion in China is Buddhism. Christianity is minority and is historically seen as a "foreign" religion in China, and it is taken as having foreign backup power. Allowing college student to participate in Christian worship and fellowship demands a better reason than what you said.

What I know came from oral communication with university administrations while we enjoyed fine Chinese cuisines in China. You do not expect to see any formal document about the policy passing around anywhere.

-------

This is all I need to say. No further question about details. Take what I said as an argument or not is up to you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I know came from oral communication with university administrations while we enjoyed fine Chinese cuisines in China. You do not expect to see any formal document about the policy passing around anywhere.

What was their source of information? I'm not saying that there have to be written documents, but this just sounds like someone's opinion. It may be an intelligent opinion, but without a source of information, it's just speculation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

What was their source of information? I'm not saying that there have to be written documents, but this just sounds like someone's opinion. It may be an intelligent opinion, but without a source of information, it's just speculation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I told you the source. At a higher level, it was a conversation with university officials. At the base level, it was the experience with university Christian students. So, to you, the source is: me.

What other kind of source do you want? I don't do this kind of study. This is only my collateral experience (I think it is much more than just being my opinion). You can do search on Internet and other database. But I am not sure what can you find.

Basically, I am shifting the argument from a personal level to a level of national policy in order to avoid any personal opinion. A totalitarian atheistic government opened an foreign back-up religion to <5% of its population demands a practical reason. And, I have told you the said reason. If you don't agree, you may write a message to the Chinese government. May be they will listen to you and close the Christianity to Chinese people again (Christianity does give them some degree of trouble). It is very easy for them to do that and have no consequence. They did that to Falun-Gong very successfully. And Falun-Gong was thousand times more popular in China than Christianity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I told you the source. At a higher level, it was a conversation with university officials. At the base level, it was the experience with university Christian students. So, to you, the source is: me.

No, I mean how do the university officials know that this is the proper explanation for the actions of the Chinese government? What are they basing their views on?

I'm not asking for a study. I want to know how the ultimate sources (the sources at the end of the source chain) are arriving at their conclusions so I may make some judgment as to whether they know something to be the case, or are merely speculating.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

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.

Now, this little tangent about crime rates and atheism and Christian came out when you said:

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

So, whether you're an atheist for whom "anything goes" or you're a Christian who has a moral compass you think comes from your deity, there is no discernible difference in moral behavior. Is that a accurate summary of what you're saying, then?

 

[juvenissun]

No, I mean how do the university officials know that this is the proper explanation for the actions of the Chinese government? What are they basing their views on?

I'm not asking for a study. I want to know how the ultimate sources (the sources at the end of the source chain) are arriving at their conclusions so I may make some judgment as to whether they know something to be the case, or are merely speculating.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I asked the question. And that was the implication in his brief answer. It is a reasonable answer and I believe that was not something which could be made up in a dinner occasion. They don't like to discuss religion in an open conversation. My speculation was supported by other workers at later time. The key is that the activity is allowed. Officials at the university level do not need to know the reason or the ultimate source of permission.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, this little tangent about crime rates and atheism and Christian came out when you said:


So, whether you're an atheist for whom "anything goes" or you're a Christian who has a moral compass you think comes from your deity, there is no discernible difference in moral behavior. Is that a accurate summary of what you're saying, then?

What I said is that there IS a big difference.

The behavior of Christian is guided by God (obeyed or not). But the behavior of an atheist is guided by human nature.

For example, adultery is forbidden by God. But it is easily justifiable, legal or even encouraged (divorce/re-marry) in atheism. A Christian who committed adultery will be judged "guilty" regardless the reason or the consequence.

 

[sandwiches]

What I said is that there IS a big difference.

The behavior of Christian is guided by God (obeyed or not). But the behavior of an atheist is guided by human nature.

For example, adultery is forbidden by God. But it is easily justifiable, legal or even encouraged (divorce/re-marry) in atheism. A Christian who committed adultery will be judged "guilty" regardless the reason or the consequence.

But Christians don't act any better than atheists, right?

 

[juvenissun]

But Christians don't act any better than atheists, right?

It is hard to get any meaningful data on your question.

Theoretically Christians should behave better. Simply because there are more restrictions (regulations) to ones behavior. And, on the opposite, atheists can justify any behavior, including killing unborn babies (is that a crime?).

Practically, it is a personal matter. There is no need for statistics. You can try to become a Christian to see if your behavior would have any change. Would you like to try? You can pull back if you don't like it.