# The Real Consequences of Atheism



## momi (Mar 17, 2014)

This is fairly long but definitely worth the time spent reading.  Especially if you are interested or involved in apologetics and/or have children.  Half of our oldest child's first year of school was spent fighting for his faith.  It's important that they are able to defend their faith.

*An atheist blogger gets brutally honest about his view and tells other atheists to quit fooling themselves.*

Quote from the article:
_
We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population.[2] They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say._





Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-real-consequences-of-atheism#ixzz2wEdhpXK6


----------



## Galadriel (Mar 17, 2014)

Wow, thanks for sharing momi

I can't disagree with the guy.

This is one of the questions that I think many atheists are uncomfortable with--their worldview doesn't allow or justify objective morality and moral virtue--because there's no need for it. If there is no God and we are mere material products of chance, then there is no reason to be good or do good, esp. when there is no personal benefit involved.


----------



## momi (Mar 17, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Wow, thanks for sharing momi  I can't disagree with the guy.  This is one of the questions that I think many atheists are uncomfortable with--their worldview doesn't allow or justify objective morality and moral virtue--because there's no need for it. If there is no God and we are mere material products of chance, then there is no reason to be good or do good, esp. when there is no personal benefit involved.



Exactly. There is no need for morality - at least until you are personally wronged. 

I just appreciate the author's honesty here. If there is no Creator then there is no Lawgiver. If there is no Lawgiver then there is no "morality" and that leaves us all free to do whatever seems right to us personally - which all leads to chaos.


----------



## curlicarib (Mar 17, 2014)

momi said:


> Exactly. There is no need for morality - at least until you are personally wronged.
> 
> I just appreciate the author's honesty here. *If there is no Creator then there is no Lawgiver. If there is no Lawgiver then there is no "morality"* and that leaves us all free to do whatever seems right to us personally - which all leads to chaos.


 
Actually, that's not true. And this is one athiest's view. Prior to a belief in your version of God, you think morality or law did not exist? People do not need a Higher Being to know right from wrong. You know right from wrong the moment you do, cause, or witness something hurtful being done to someone. One of the earlist examples of this is Hammurabi's Code. While there is discussion of how religion may have influenced this code, there is no references to religion within them. These laws are morality based. The "lawgiver" in this case was the king who did not consider himself a god or descended from a god.

Also, if a person does not believe in God does not mean that there is no need for morality in thier lives.  What keeps a father home to raise his child? What prevents your neighbor, brother, sister from overpowering you and taking what yours?  God?  No, morality.  And for many people that morality comes from empathy towards others and societal acceptablity.


----------



## FreeIndeed (Mar 17, 2014)

Thank you for the post momi

This article brings to mind a discussion that I had with a staunch atheist, who defended bestiality as "morally benign" (unharmful). This particular person is one of the few atheists that I have seen take their worldview to its logical conclusion. If morality is subjective and a by product of evolution, then anything goes and one would be "illogical" or "irrational" to deem something *objectively* immoral. 

This article also brought to mind the American humanist billboards which say "Millions are good without God." My immediate response after reading it was "Well. . . what is the definition of "good" in a universe where there is no God, and therefore no objective standard of good and evil? Who is the authority on such things? What is the measuring stick?" Their own hearts I guess? The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Who can know it?

Even more problematic are professing Christians who espouse moral relativism. This mentality and philosophy has spread within the Christian community unfortunately. This is why it is so important for us to be knowledgeable and grounded in the teaching of Jesus Christ, and have an awareness of the philosophies and religions around us.


----------



## Galadriel (Mar 17, 2014)

curlicarib said:


> Actually, that's not true. And this is one athiest's view. Prior to a belief in your version of God, you think morality or law did not exist?



Of course not. Morality is Objective--which means it exists in all times and in all places for all people.

Morality exists because we live in a moral universe with moral laws (just as there are physical laws of gravity, there are moral laws). 

Furthermore, there is a lawgiver--God.



curlicarib said:


> People do not need a Higher Being to know right from wrong.



It is the Higher Being who engraved in our hearts the moral law to begin with. The fact that whether I'm in America, or Asia, or a tribe on a remote island, and we are all able to say, "Do not unjustly kill," "Honor your parents/elders" proves that humanity has been instilled with the moral law. In Catholicism, we call this, the "Natural Law," because it's ingrained in human nature. However, there are "Divine Laws" which must be revealed to us directly by God and which we couldn't have expressed or created on our own, such as the First Commandment (for example).



curlicarib said:


> You know right from wrong the moment you do, cause, or witness something hurtful being done to someone.



But WHY? 

No one here denies that humans make moral judgments and can witness acts that are either morally good or bad. But the question is why? Morality has laws, and moral actions are means to ends. And sometimes people deny morality, or embrace bad morals. 



curlicarib said:


> Also, if a person does not believe in God does not mean that there is no need for morality in thier lives.



An atheist can have a moral code, but he has to take his moral code from somewhere outside himself--again, morality is objective and exists outside ourselves. I would also point out that often atheists can embrace mistaken or bad morals.



curlicarib said:


> And for many people that morality comes from empathy towards others and societal acceptablity.



Empathy is an emotion, but not strong enough of an emotion to impose morality, nor is empathy the creator or explainer of morality. Also, what happens when a person fails or chooses not to empathize with another person (such as a person whom they hate)? What about people who believe that those who are weaker than them deserve to be overtaken or taken advantage of?


----------



## Galadriel (Mar 17, 2014)

Ladies, 

Remember going to the movie theater a while back and seeing those anti-piracy commercials. Big white letters would flash across the screen: "DON'T BUY PIRATED MOVIES," followed up by, "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW." and when that didn't work, they put a cameraman in front of us discussing how pirated DVDs meant a loss of revenue, and small guys like him in the movie industry got the short end of the stick--so, you know, don't pirate!

This is how I feel a "We can have morality without God" type of morality attempts to work. If I'm a bootlegger, I don't care. As long as I can get away with it and evade human authority or reprimand, then why not bootleg and make money? "Piracy is against the law so don't do it" is laughable (to such a person) because there is nothing to compel me to turn away other than actual imprisonment. And who knows, piracy might become cool or respected, or not such a big deal in 30 years--people's standards change all the time, right?

---

This is my problem with subjective morality, and the "You can't do X because it's wrong, and X is wrong because it's wrong," because they want to benefit from Judeo-Christian morality which has been ingrained in our culture, yet they want to replace the actual meat of it with a "moral system" that is subjective, or doesn't know how to explain WHY I should not pirate, or steal, or defraud someone, or lie.


----------



## momi (Mar 17, 2014)

curlicarib said:


> Actually, that's not true. And this is one athiest's view. Prior to a belief in your version of God, you think morality or law did not exist? People do not need a Higher Being to know right from wrong. You know right from wrong the moment you do, cause, or witness something hurtful being done to someone. One of the earlist examples of this is Hammurabi's Code. While there is discussion of how religion may have influenced this code, there is no references to religion within them. These laws are morality based. The "lawgiver" in this case was the king who did not consider himself a god or descended from a god.
> 
> Also, if a person does not believe in God does not mean that there is no need for morality in thier lives.  What keeps a father home to raise his child? What prevents your neighbor, brother, sister from overpowering you and taking what yours?  God?  No, morality.  And for many people that morality comes from empathy towards others and societal acceptablity.



Hi Curlicrib - sorry I am just now seeing your reply.

Without a Lawgiver morality is only relative.   It's doing what is right as you define it.  There is no universal law of morality outside of God's laws and I would argue that the virtues you have mentioned above come from God writing his laws on our hearts.  This is how we truly know right from wrong.  

God's law of right and wrong is known instinctively.  Unfortunately many people attribute this to other sources but it ultimately comes from Our Creator.


----------



## momi (Mar 17, 2014)

FreeIndeed said:


> Thank you for the post momi
> 
> This article brings to mind a discussion that I had with a staunch atheist, who defended bestiality as "morally benign" (unharmful). This particular person is one of the few atheists that I have seen take their worldview to its logical conclusion. If morality is subjective and a by product of evolution, then anything goes and one would be "illogical" or "irrational" to deem something *objectively* immoral.
> 
> ...




Exactly  - we are all "good" in our own eyes.  If I compare myself to the lowest of humanity I would consider myself bright, shining, and holy - but compared to God's law my best is a filthy rag.


----------



## momi (Mar 17, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Ladies,
> 
> Remember going to the movie theater a while back and seeing those anti-piracy commercials. Big white letters would flash across the screen: "DON'T BUY PIRATED MOVIES," followed up by, "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW." and when that didn't work, they put a cameraman in front of us discussing how pirated DVDs meant a loss of revenue, and small guys like him in the movie industry got the short end of the stick--so, you know, don't pirate!
> 
> ...



Thank you Galadriel!


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Mar 17, 2014)

This guy in the OP does not speak for me. 

Here is my truth 

- Religion is a construct of MAN
- made by men so that people could LIVE TOGETHER in a society without anarchy.

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Mar 18, 2014)

After thinking about this a little further, I wouldn't be surprised if this person was some kind of religious troll pretending to be an atheist. 

We are such a small minority in this country and around the world. Who really is concerned with us? Who really fears us?  

The specific example about coveting and sexing another mans wife seems so odd to me. Every example in real life where I've seen this happen, both people were of some religious faith. 

Religion is all about competition and being better than the "other" in my opinion. I ain't about that life. Live and let live.

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## momi (Mar 18, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> After thinking about this a little further, I wouldn't be surprised if this person was some kind of religious troll pretending to be an atheist.
> 
> I'm not sure what purpose that would serve - and even if it were true it doesn't make his conclusions less valid.
> 
> ...


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Mar 19, 2014)

In my personal life I only know and socialize with one other atheist. So I have no personal experience with the general atheist population in my city state or USA. I don't seek them out to bond with them.   

As I stated before - maybe I wasn't clear - I see religion as a foundation for secular laws. It served its purpose to create a set of laws people could and can live in society together.

    I believe that men in robes created those laws and said a higher power will intervene if they are broken. In reality, when a man or woman cheats, in addition to divorce (secular penalty), there is a secular penalty placed on the cheater in the community. This happens if your are religious or not.   god didn't intervene to apprehend the man who broke into my and my neighbors house. It was the police. god is not  the judge and jury in his case. 

  My parents taught me right from wrong. My mother took me to church. I was baptized took communion.  All those teachings don't go away just because I say I am an atheist.   

For those people who claim to be am atheist and into bestiality - I question their home life and how they were raised and what they were exposed to.   I believe we are born a blank slate. Who we become has a direct link to nurture and nature. How you are being raised and who you are exposed to.

   A persons religion doesn't protect them from the pedophile or rapist or murder sitting right next to them in their church.  

 We all walk thru life either with some level of trust of those around us. OR we walk thru life in some heightened state of paranoia of those who are perceived as other. It's finding a balance between the two is where I live.

   Trying not to nitpick and find extreme examples of any and everything to judge in others. Live and let live.      God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## Farida (Mar 20, 2014)

I believe at the very basic level we know right from wrong because God puts it in our hearts. Even before you tell a kid what is wrong or right you find them hiding, lying and manipulating to hide something they did that was wrong. We don't need a law to tell us that murdering infants for fun is wrong. It invokes something in us...this sense of fair and unfair, justice. 

Now,when it comes to the more complicated things, the nuances...and as we grow and develop our intellect and reason our evil nature becomes a force to reckon with and overtakes the basic idea of wrong and right.

But I do think moral relativism is a dangerous thing. I believe that many of the most evil people in this world are not just people who enjoy doing the "wrong thing," rather they have convinced themselves that what they are doing is right...or at least not as bad or justified by circumstance. And this is also something that Christians do, unfortunately.

When people amass wealth and power....absolute power corrupts absolutely and throw moral relativism in the mix and all he'll breaks loose.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Mar 20, 2014)

^^some christians


----------



## JaneBond007 (Mar 20, 2014)

We need His law because He loves justice and this whole microcosm is part of His courtroom  We humans need absolutes and we cannot comprehend the importance of those laws of right/wrong written on our hearts without His written laws.  Moral relativism is what every society practices.  There are just some people who have the grace to recognize the dangers and steer clear from it.  Most people are in the middle, depending upon the circumstances.  The purer souls who see more clearly than others might just be the ones who keep His justice from destroying us all, as with Lot.  These are just my own thoughts.


----------



## Laela (Mar 20, 2014)

It boggles the mind, the effort it takes someone to disprove something they don't' even believe exists in the first place.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 7, 2014)

This Guy is F.O.S.  Perhaps in his own heart he wants to Kill his Neighbor, and rape the man's wife.  But that's his issue and I hope he seeks help for that

Atheism is NOT a world view.  Atheism is simply a non-belief in the super natural.  That's it.  What one individual Atheist believes or thinks has no bearing on any other atheist.

Now as far as not Killing and raping.  Prisons are full of Theist who have Killed and Rape.  As a matter of Fact in America, the Prision population is Largely Theist.

The susposed Satistic is America is 95% Theist.  That means the odds of a Theist going around raping and killing are much much greater. 

If god is such a bastian for good why are so many theist in prison?
Why do so many theist beat their Children, Cheat on their spouses, beat their wives and use the babble as the justification for that?

Name one case of someone who was formly a Theist, who then became Atheist and proceeded to go on a killing spree.  Name one!

When you go from theist to atheist NOTHING else about you changes.  If you were going to kill someone as an atheist, you would do as a theist.  

Accepting that you are an Atheist, is no different than excepting you don't believe in Santa, Zeus, Ra, Allah, etc... so to say that a moral compass, what,  just shuts off or something,  is stupid.


Again we live in a Country that Claims to be 95% THEIST, that means that if Belief in a god was all one needed to maintain Morality, Our Prisons would be virtually EMPTY.


----------



## momi (Apr 7, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> This Guy is F.O.S.  Perhaps in his own heart he wants to Kill his Neighbor, and rape the man's wife.  But that's his issue and I hope he seeks help for that  Atheism is NOT a world view.  Atheism is simply a non-belief in the super natural.  That's it.  What one individual Atheist believes or thinks has no bearing on any other atheist.  Now as far as not Killing and raping.  Prisons are full of Theist who have Killed and Rape.  As a matter of Fact in America, the Prision population is Largely Theist.  The susposed Satistic is America is 95% Theist.  That means the odds of a Theist going around raping and killing are much much greater.  If god is such a bastian for good why are so many theist in prison? Why do so many theist beat their Children, Cheat on their spouses, beat their wives and use the babble as the justification for that?  Name one case of someone who was formly a Theist, who then became Atheist and proceeded to go on a killing spree.  Name one!  When you go from theist to atheist NOTHING else about you changes.  If you were going to kill someone as an atheist, you would do as a theist.  Accepting that you are an Atheist, is no different than excepting you don't believe in Santa, Zeus, Ra, Allah, etc... so to say that a moral compass, what,  just shuts off or something,  is stupid.  Again we live in a Country that Claims to be 95% THEIST, that means that if Belief in a god was all one needed to maintain Morality, Our Prisons would be virtually EMPTY.



Acknowledgment of a truth doesn't always mean a person has to abide by it. Your argument is nonsense. I know if I want to lose weight I need to reduce  my caloric intake - but here I am in the drive-thru at Chick Fil- A getting ice cream.  People make choices. 

Secondly if there is no moral code what makes murder or husband snatching wrong? The author is saying as an atheist he is free to do whatever he desires without any moral  code to live by and he is right on point.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 7, 2014)

momi said:


> Acknowledgment of a truth doesn't always mean a person has to abide by it. Your argument is nonsense. I know if I want to lose weight I need to reduce  my caloric intake - but here I am in the drive-thru at Chick Fil- A getting ice cream.  People make choices.
> 
> Secondly if there is no moral code what makes murder or husband snatching wrong? The author is saying as an atheist he is free to do whatever he desires without any moral  code to live by and he is right on point.



momi "People make Choices", so that dismisses the so called theist moral code completely.  That means the Atheist and Theist are free to do whatever they Choose.  Just as you are free to eat at Chick-fil-a.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 7, 2014)

Objective state?


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> @momi "People make Choices", so that dismisses the so called theist moral code completely.  That means the Atheist and Theist are free to do whatever they Choose.  Just as you are free to eat at Chick-fil-a.



Sin is the disobedience of the moral law. People sin--even those who believe God exists. The existence of sin only shows that there IS an objective moral law that is being violated.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 7, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Sin is the disobedience of the moral law. People sin--even those who believe God exists. The existence of sin only shows that there IS an objective moral law that is being violated.




Galadriel That makes the Moral Code optional and Useless.  Prehaps the only reason Some theist aren't sinning is simply because they have choosen not to, not because of fear of the Code, but because they are  just making a personal choice to not do bad things, just like Atheist


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 7, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> Galadriel That makes the Moral Code optional and Useless.  Prehaps the only reason Some theist aren't sinning is simply because they have choosen not to, not because of fear of the Code, but because they are  just making a personal choice to not do bad things, just like Atheist



Or they haven't been caught as yet ie murder thief or adulterer.

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 7, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> Or they haven't been caught as yet ie murder thief or adulterer.
> 
> God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.



itsallaboutattitude BTK was serial Killer who Never missed Church.  but in his free time He was killing people all over the country for Decades.

It was people who stopped him, not the God Alien. 

I bet the God Alien has a a really cool lab coat


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 7, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> itsallaboutattitude BTK was serial Killer who Never missed Church.  but in his free time He was killing people all over the country for Decades.  It was people who stopped him, not the God Alien.  I bet the God Alien has a a really cool lab coat




Lol.

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## Laela (Apr 7, 2014)

@ the bolded, you are correct; Christians choose not to sin, by accepting Christ and yielding to the Holy Spirit. It's a personal choice of life and not death. Therefore, they are motivated by Love and not fear. So you are correct.

Atheists, too, have the power of choice.  That's the only commonality.

God offers to all, even atheists, life and death, though He hopes everyone chooses Life. In my experience, I've learned some atheists know, or have known, the truth and choose to fight it for whatever reason. Some know more Scripture than the most earnest of Christians. I lived with one. It's tragic, actually. But my prayer is always that others seek God with all their heart and not look so much at what man is doing. He desires our love and attention and deserves it. I have to ask, why is it so important to you, that you feel the need to justify an alien God doesn't exist? He clearly does. You are discussing Him with Christians.



BlkOnyx488 said:


> Galadriel That makes the Moral Code optional and Useless.  *Prehaps the only reason Some theist aren't sinning is simply because they have choosen not to, not because of fear of the Code, but because they are  just making a personal choice *to not do bad things, just like Atheist


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> @Galadriel That makes the Moral Code optional and Useless.  Prehaps the only reason Some theist aren't sinning is simply because they have choosen not to, not because of fear of the Code, but because they are  just making a personal choice to not do bad things, just like Atheist



The Moral Law isn't optional or useless because people commit immoral acts. If a person commits a moral (or immoral) act, it demonstrates that the person, like all persons, have free will and are therefore *culpable* for their moral or immoral choice. Breaking the Moral Law is not without consequence. There are spiritual consequences (the defilement of the soul, the darkening of the intellect, the proclivity to continue in immorality or even worse immorality, Hell). There are temporal consequences to immoral acts (physical harm to one's body or well-being, prosecution and incarceration via the civil justice system, the loss of relationships or family, the loss of one's job, etc.)


I try to avoid sin, not merely from a personal preference, but first and foremost, sin (aka immorality, aka evil actions) offends God and His Moral Law. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. Secondly, I try to avoid sin because Christ paid for my Redemption with His Blood. If I am to call myself a follower of Christ and a child of God--I ought to live like it. Thirdly, I try to avoid sin because I do not want to lose Heaven and endure Hell.

All of us are sinners. None of us are perfect. So I am not surprised that an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Pagan, or whoever else sins. We are fallen creatures. We are all sinners. But because we choose to sin, doesn't mean there isn't an objective Moral Law, nor any consequences. The fact that we are even able to acknowledge that we sin and fall short of a standard is a testament.

This is why Christ came to die for us--for our sins. He grants us forgiveness upon repentance, and the Holy Spirit gives us the supernatural grace to avoid sin.

No one will be able to avoid sin without the supernatural grace of God. Catholics tend to call this the "state of grace." We damage or chip away at our state of grace when we commit venial sins, and fall from a state of grace when we commit mortal sin. Hence the need for repentance and confession.

Sorry, I'm getting a little sidetracked. But my point is that the atheist can choose and acknowledge morally good actions, because God CREATED us or hardwired us as human beings to acknowledge and choose between good and evil. The problem is that because we are broken, we often choose immorality, often out of weakness, and sometimes out of malice.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 7, 2014)

Laela said:


> @ the bolded, you are correct; Christians choose not to sin, by accepting Christ and yielding to the Holy Spirit. It's a personal choice of life and not death. Therefore, they are motivated by Love and not fear. So you are correct.
> 
> Atheists, too, have the power of choice.  That's the only commonality.
> 
> God offers to all, even atheists, life and death, though He hopes everyone chooses Life. In my experience, I've learned some atheists know, or have known, the truth and choose to fight it for whatever reason. Some know more Scripture than the most earnest of Christians. I lived with one. It's tragic, actually. *But my prayer is always that others seek God with all their heart and not look so much at what man is doing*. He desires our love and attention and deserves it. I have to ask, why is it so important to you, that you feel the need to justify an alien God doesn't exist? He clearly does. You are discussing Him with Christians.



Laela Theist posted an article about Atheist. I merely came in here to refute the article, not discuss Christianity with Christians.
Although I am not opposed to that.  However these Conversation tend to not go well, because Christians are so emtionaly invested in their belief, anyone that speaks out against the Christian Belief is accused of Attacking, then the Atheist usually gets threatened with eternal hayle fire or something. 

So if theist are free to discuss Atheist, atheist should be free to discuss Atheist and theist.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 7, 2014)

There is no as yet known proof that a supernatural being created anything. 




Galadriel said:


> The Moral Law isn't optional or useless because people commit immoral acts. If a person commits a moral (or immoral) act, it demonstrates that the person, like all persons, have free will and are therefore *culpable* for their moral or immoral choice. Breaking the Moral Law is not without consequence. There are spiritual consequences (the defilement of the soul, the darkening of the intellect, the proclivity to continue in immorality or even worse immorality, Hell). There are temporal consequences to immoral acts (physical harm to one's body or well-being, prosecution and incarceration via the civil justice system, the loss of relationships or family, the loss of one's job, etc.)
> 
> 
> I try to avoid sin, not merely from a personal preference, but first and foremost, sin (aka immorality, aka evil actions) offends God and His Moral Law. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. Secondly, I try to avoid sin because Christ paid for my Redemption with His Blood. If I am to call myself a follower of Christ and a child of God--I ought to live like it. Thirdly, I try to avoid sin because I do not want to lose Heaven and endure Hell.
> ...


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> There is no as yet known proof that a supernatural being created anything.



So you say...but is such a statement true?

No, it isn't.

God exists, He is knowable, and He has made Himself known.

He is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible.

He came down from Heaven, became man, was crucified and died, and rose from the dead. He established a Church, through which all are to hear His Good News and be saved.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 8, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> So you say...but is such a statement true?
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> ...



nah never happened.  It is true a book was created by a bunch of men and a govenment in the 4th century that said all this stuff.  but outside of that book, there is no evidence that any of it ever happened.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> nah never happened.  It is true a book was created by a bunch of men and a govenment in the 4th century that said all this stuff.  but outside of that book, there is no evidence that any of it ever happened.



The Bible (or the New Testament) wasn't created in the 4th century. Christians used the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament (Ethiopian and Greek-speaking Jews also used the Septuagint), and the Gospels date back to the 1st Century (the earliest being 40 years after the Resurrection). 

If you click on this link and scroll down to the chart, you will see several Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, etc.) whose writings PRE-DATE the 4th Century (we're talking late 1st and 2nd Centuries), quoting VAST amounts of the New Testament. In fact, they quote more than 36,000 New testament references BEFORE the 4th Century.

As far as extra-biblical references to Christ...

Tacitus (64 AD, non-Christian) references Christ when giving a report on Emperor Nero's decision to blame Christians for the  fire that had destroyed Rome in 64, AD: Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their  abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the  name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of  Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous  superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in  Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .​Pliny the Younger (112 AD) wrote to the emperor Trajan for advice on how to prosecute people who were accused of being Christians. In his letter, he reports what he had gathered so far in his investigation:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it  was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a  god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but  never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their  word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up;  after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to  partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.​ Here, we see that  Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Also,  their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly  believed in His divinity. Pliny understood the Christians to be worshiping a historical person as God.

There is also the Jewish historian Josephus who rendered an account of Christ's condemnation and Crucifixion in his book, Jewish Antiquities.

The rabbinical texts from the Babylonian Talmud also say: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the  execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be  stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

And then there's Lucian, the 2nd Century Greek satirist who wrote of Christians: The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished  personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that  account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver  that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and  deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after  his laws.

To say that a group of 4th Century guys, colluding with the government got together and made it all up is both untrue and ignorant.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 8, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> After thinking about this a little further, I wouldn't be surprised if this person was some kind of religious troll pretending to be an atheist.
> 
> We are such a small minority in this country and around the world. Who really is concerned with us? Who really fears us?
> 
> ...




But that is an unfair judgment just as someone else's unfair judgment about trying to be better than the "other."  In my world, we are all the same, and we are all G-d's children (as in all on equal ground).  Some know His oral and written laws, some don't, but all know the ones innate or inherent on their hearts.  That's what objective morality is....it's beyond us and put into place to where we are born into those conditions.  They are universal.  Of course, I've explained it from a position of believing there is a g-d.  We all know murdering is wrong etc.  How so?  What determines that...and etc.??  The red enboldened is the problem, because that's a subjective opinion.  It's not necessarily true of others but until we actually know what other people believe, we should not make such judgments.  We might be wrong.  That goes for all of us.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 8, 2014)

I was referring to the babble as we know it today.  1st Century Christians Used a babble that never mentioned Jesus.

jesus was never written about until a few decades after his death.

And all your references listed below, that claim to speak of Jesus also happened Years sometimes centuries after his supposed death.

There are no direct writings from a jesus that exist.

There may have been a man named jesus that was Cruxified by the Romans, but no one seemed to notice he was the Messiah until a few decades after he died.

Just because a person doesn't spew all their knowledge out in ever single post doesn't make them ignorant.  It makes them Terse.



Galadriel said:


> The Bible (or the New Testament) wasn't created in the 4th century. Christians used the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament (Ethiopian and Greek-speaking Jews also used the Septuagint), and the Gospels date back to the 1st Century (the earliest being 40 years after the Resurrection).
> 
> If you click on this link and scroll down to the chart, you will see several Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, etc.) whose writings PRE-DATE the 4th Century (we're talking late 1st and 2nd Centuries), quoting VAST amounts of the New Testament. In fact, they quote more than 36,000 New testament references BEFORE the 4th Century.
> 
> ...


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 8, 2014)

Actually, the Christ is prefigured all through the Tanakh and his name is mentioned as "Salvation." The letters of the apostles talked about Jesus and preached on Him.  As the completion was written down, one could say He was mentioned only afterwards.  However, the apostolic purpose was based upon the Christ and explained their encounters all in those earlier days.  They lived with Him and saw Him die, witnessed His Resurrection.  Reading about bits and pieces don't qualify as expert knowledge.  This is why I always invite people to read the books, doctrines, etc. of the faith they are talking about, no matter what it is.  I don't like hearsay because it leaves out truths.  I thnk the apostolic writings suffice.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> I was referring to the babble as we know it today.  1st Century Christians Used a babble that never mentioned Jesus.



I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Babble," and yes, the 1st Century Christians did mention Jesus, and I even gave you the references.

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, *110 AD* (Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle). I bolded the referencees to Jesus Christ and direct quotes from the Gospels:

 I Glorify God, even *Jesus Christ*, who has given you such wisdom. For I have  observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to  the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are  established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with  respect to our Lord, that *He was truly of the seed of David according to the  flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God;* that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that  all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and *was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to  the cross] for us in His flesh.* Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful  [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Now, He suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and  not in appearance only, even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of  the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and  death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body  of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who  said, *"The Word was made flesh; " *and again, *"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; "* and once more, *"If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto  Me." *The Word therefore did dwell in flesh, for "Wisdom built herself an  house." The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been  destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was  lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all  men to Himself for their eternal salvation. 



BlkOnyx488 said:


> jesus was never written about until a few decades after his death.



And? That doesn't make Him any less true or historical. There are many historical figures, especially from antiquity, who were written about after their deaths. Christ came from a humble background, grew up in Nazareth (not Jerusalem or Rome), and died on a Cross. You're not going to have people writing up interviews and accounts as it happened.

The Apostles passed down their teachings through preaching, the passing down of tradition, and in the written Gospels and Epistles. The earliest Gospel is dated to 40 years after Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection.



BlkOnyx488 said:


> And all your references listed below, that claim to speak of Jesus also happened Years sometimes centuries after his supposed death.



What reputable historian or academic historical principle states that a person isn't a historical figure because historians or contemporaries write about that person years after the person's death? That makes no sense.



BlkOnyx488 said:


> There are no direct writings from a jesus that exist.



Neither do we have a text written by Marc Antony (of Julius Cesar fame), Atila the Hun, heck-- the famous Greek Philosopher Socrates has no written text either. Everything we know about Socrates comes from Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Socrates's student Plato, and Plato's student, Aristotle.



BlkOnyx488 said:


> There may have been a man named jesus that was Cruxified by the Romans, but no one seemed to notice he was the Messiah until a few decades after he died.



Christianity started off with a handful of Palestinian Jews without Facebook or prime time TV interviews--the spread of the Gospel was going to take some time. They were at first looked upon as a Jewish sect or a Jewish heresy. The Roman Empire early on saw the emergence of Christianity as a Jewish problem. The Christians were known to still meet in Synagogues up until they were finally expelled by a council of rabbis. When Roman authorities saw that the Christians were separate (and not the equivalent of Pharisees vs. Sadducees), AND that they refused to worship anyone other than Christus (Christ), that's when persecution came down. In 64 AD it hit them even harder when the emperor falsely accused Christians of being responsible for the destructive fires that had occurred that year. 

So not only were Christians fighting for their message of the Gospel to be heard, they also had to strive against misinformation campaigns and executions. In fact, the Church literally had to go underground and worship in the Roman catacombs (if you go to Italy, you can see the catacombs, the writings and paintings on the walls, and artifacts left from antiquity ).


----------



## Enyo (Apr 8, 2014)

Generally, I don’t post in this forum because Christianity is not interesting to me, but as an atheist, I wanted to make a comment.

Everything people are talking about here seems very conceptual and assumptive in terms of morality. But when we look at our planet, there is so much hard proof that secular/irreligious people are perfectly able to have societies that are peaceful and moral. Take Japan for instance. Their moral system is philosophy based (Buddhism/Shinto). No Judeo-Christian influence there, and you see a low amount of violent crime (police don’t even carry guns!), no people to suffer and die because they can’t afford decent healthcare, or setting students up to fail in the education system simply because they live in poor areas. Honestly, that’s a more Christ-like society than the one most of us live in. 

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, the UK (which ironically has a state religion, but not a huge amount of adherents), Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Korea and many other countries are less violent and more concerned with the health and welfare of their people. They do not believe in one all-powerful/knowing/controlling god with laws like Christians, and yet they are very good countries to live in. 

However, when I look at the United States, the states which have the worst reputation for racism, poverty, and human rights violations are also the most religious. The same goes for dozens countries that are religious, but treat their people poorly and are in a constant state social and political of unrest. Sure, some of them have laws that we might not like (for instance prostitution is legal in some very liberal countries), but the USA does things that other countries consider barbaric like the death penalty. 

I disagree that people cannot be moral without an outside force simply I do not see any hard evidence of that – not because I need to justify why I do not believe in gods for any kind. If there was measurable proof that I am wrong, then I’d consider it. My issue is when people talk in terms of concepts, but cannot give solid evidence that can be analyzed and agreed on by everyone in terms of validity. That’s why I always give examples of countries that are irreligious, but are not in moral chaos and decay. That’s just a fact – not my opinion. I haven’t seen one shred of evidence that people need God to be good. That’s all opinion until there is something measurable. If I have to believe as you to understand as you, then there is a flaw in your rationale, not mine.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 8, 2014)

It really doesn't matter if Socrates was real, or Marc Anthony existed,  No one is being told believe in their existence or burn for eternity.

However, Even if there was a Man we now call Jesus, that does not prove he was a devine being. Or that his daddy got a girl pregnant against her will in a manor that is never been explained in the babble err bible. His birth is only mention in two of the Gospels and each one has two different accounts of his birth.

As Enyo so eloqently pointed out, Individuals and Society does not need a belief in a christ to live by a moral code.

We can treat one another with respect because that is what makes a society thrive.

Our Secular laws is what we use to determine a punishment not a god





Galadriel said:


> I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Babble," and yes, the 1st Century Christians did mention Jesus, and I even gave you the references.
> 
> Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, *110 AD* (Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle). I bolded the referencees to Jesus Christ and direct quotes from the Gospels:
> 
> ...


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 8, 2014)

I agree, @Enyo, because just by the article rhetoric, it is pretty insulting suggesting that atheists have no morals and I do comprehend both sides of the argument and view truths each are making.


----------



## curlicarib (Apr 8, 2014)

Enyo said:


> Generally, I don’t post in this forum because Christianity is not interesting to me, but as an atheist, I wanted to make a comment.
> 
> Everything people are talking about here seems very conceptual and assumptive in terms of morality. But when we look at our planet, there is so much hard proof that secular/irreligious people are perfectly able to have societies that are peaceful and moral. Take Japan for instance. Their moral system is philosophy based (Buddhism/Shinto). No Judeo-Christian influence there, and you see a low amount of violent crime (police don’t even carry guns!), no people to suffer and die because they can’t afford decent healthcare, or setting students up to fail in the education system simply because they live in poor areas. Honestly, that’s a more Christ-like society than the one most of us live in.
> 
> ...


 

Well said.  Where's that slow clap gif?


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

I think you're misunderstanding my position. My argument isn't that a non-Christian or atheist can't do moral good or make morally good decisions--*they can, because morality is objective and ingrained in human nature.* *We possess the faculty of Reason, which allows us to freely make moral choices.* The adherence to objective morality is part of Natural Law.

I reject moral subjectivity where people argue that morals are derived from emotion, personal subjective preference, or from some vague evolutionary necessity. 

Now, even among those of us who prefer to choose good, even we fail at the objective moral standard. There are decent men and women who slip up and lie, or steal, or a "good guy" who succumbs to adultery. We all sin, even those of us who consider ourselves moral people or decent people. So are we truly good? 

While we have the ability to choose good, we also have the ability and have many times committed evil due to our broken nature. We have a tendency to do wrong. This is called concupiscence. This is why you see sinfulness in societies.

Also, I would add that atheistic Communist regimes of the 20th Century killed more people than all religious wars combined. So clearly "I can be good without God" didn't work for atheist Communist Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and others.

BTW, Japan had some pretty bloody wars in its past from the 1100's up to the 1700's. And then there was the Pearl Harbor bombing in WW2.





Enyo said:


> Generally, I don’t post in this forum because Christianity is not interesting to me, but as an atheist, I wanted to make a comment.
> 
> Everything people are talking about here seems very conceptual and assumptive in terms of morality. But when we look at our planet, there is so much hard proof that secular/irreligious people are perfectly able to have societies that are peaceful and moral. Take Japan for instance. Their moral system is philosophy based (Buddhism/Shinto). No Judeo-Christian influence there, and you see a low amount of violent crime (police don’t even carry guns!), no people to suffer and die because they can’t afford decent healthcare, or setting students up to fail in the education system simply because they live in poor areas. Honestly, that’s a more Christ-like society than the one most of us live in.
> 
> ...


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> It really doesn't matter if Socrates was real, or Marc Anthony existed,  No one is being told believe in their existence or burn for eternity.



Yes, it does matter.

The argument you made was illogical and false.

You were basically arguing that unless a person wrote a memoir or published his/her own text, that it is grounds to doubt the person even existed. We have no writings by Socrates himself, and only four people in the historical record wrote about him--two of them were Socrates' own students. And yet Socrates is arguably the greatest and most influential philosopher of Western antiquity, and the Socratic dialogues (written by Plato) are still studied in university classrooms and classical education programs till this day.



BlkOnyx488 said:


> However, Even if there was a Man we now call Jesus, that does not prove he was a devine being. Or that his daddy got a girl pregnant against her will in a manor that is never been explained in the babble err bible. His birth is only mention in two of the Gospels and each one has two different accounts of his birth.



I understand you don't believe, and that is your choice. However, I find your constant use of the word "babble" to be both disrespectful and ignorant. You don't know much of history or even how historical investigation is conducted. 



BlkOnyx488 said:


> We can treat one another with respect because that is what makes a society thrive.



Yes, respect, like the half-naked champions of modern diversity and tolerance HERE who attacked a bishop, or how about HERE where they ran into a church on Christmas eve, violently disrupted services, with blasphemies written on their chests?

You (general you) talk about being "good without God" and "We know how to respect each other and get along," but is that the case? Some of you don't even consistently adhere to the values and virtues you supposedly preach. "Tolerance for all! Unless it's a conservative Christian." "It's wrong to attack and harass! Unless you're doing it to a conservative Christian."

Your morality is subjective, fickle, and often derailed by concupiscence. Sometimes you even espouse moral evil and call it a virtue. You are not a reliable source of determining good and evil because you call evil things good (fornication, pornography, sodomy, killing the unborn) and attack true virtue.


----------



## Enyo (Apr 8, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Also, I would add that atheistic Communist regimes of the 20th Century killed more people than all religious wars combined. So clearly "I can be good without God" didn't work for atheist Communist Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and others.
> 
> BTW, Japan had some pretty bloody wars in its past from the 1100's up to the 1700's. And then there was the Pearl Harbor bombing in WW2.


 
This is very typical Christian rhetoric. Focusing on a few dark spots where the forcible suppression of religion was harmful without acknowledging 1) The forcible application of atheism is nothing compared the blood that has been shed in the name of gods over the last few thousand years. 2) People are STILL being tortured, oppressed, and killed all over for being the "wrong" religion, not practicing the religion “properly”, misinterpreting religion, disagreeing with religion, etc. while there are very few brutal atheist lead regimes left. 3.) Non-religious countries are still much better than the more religious ones _at this point in history_. 
 
Once again, I’m not seeing the presentation of true evidence. Just cherry picking history to suit a belief system that you’re trying to uphold.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 8, 2014)

Hmmm, Galadriel's pretty balanced in her presentations, though, and doesn't personally ignore the ugly history of the church or resort to some perceived typical rhetoric - it's simply fact to show that lack of morality is on all sides.  That's kinda lumping people in one bag.  It's true what happened under Communism and christians weren't the only sufferers.  To me, that's pointing to an objective morality that exists above and beyond us and our control?


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

Enyo said:


> This is very typical Christian rhetoric. Focusing on a few dark spots where the forcible suppression of religion was harmful without acknowledging 1) The forcible application of atheism is nothing compared the blood that has been shed in the name of gods over the last few thousand years. 2) People are STILL being tortured, oppressed, and killed all over for being the "wrong" religion, not practicing the religion “properly”, misinterpreting religion, disagreeing with religion, etc. while there are very few brutal atheist lead regimes left. 3.) Non-religious countries are still much better than the more religious ones _at this point in history_.
> 
> Once again, I’m not seeing the presentation of true evidence. Just cherry picking history to suit a belief system that you’re trying to uphold.



I didn't cherry pick anything. You're the one that brought up Japan as an example of a peaceful non-Christian nation that abides by morals sans Christianity--unless you leave out the wars (both civil and non-civil) Japan had engaged in for 600 years, AND they sided with the Nazis in WW2. I bring this up not because I dislike Japan or have anything against it, but I'm simply pointing out the fact that we are ALL sinners and fall short of the objective standard of morality. No person, society, or nation is innocent.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Hmmm, Galadriel's pretty balanced in her presentations, though, and doesn't personally ignore the ugly history of the church.  That's kinda lumping people in one bag.  It's true what happened under Communism and christians weren't the only sufferers.



Agreed, JB. I can easily point out historical instances where Christian people and societies have sinned. But that is my entire point-- we are fallen, broken, sinful creatures. None of us are innocent. Thus the need for supernatural grace and the Divine Law.


----------



## Enyo (Apr 8, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Hmmm, Galadriel's pretty balanced in her presentations, though, and doesn't personally ignore the ugly history of the church. That's kinda lumping people in one bag. It's true what happened under Communism and christians weren't the only sufferers.


Making a cherry picking comment (or anything similar) at the end of a statement immediately causes me to question the rest of what someone said, even if it made sense up until that point. It’s like giving someone a fair and accurate assessment of themselves and then giving a backhanded compliment at the end. Total red flag. 



Galadriel said:


> I didn't cherry pick anything. You're the one that brought up Japan as an example of a peaceful non-Christian nation that abides by morals sans Christianity--unless you leave out the wars (both civil and non-civil) Japan had engaged in for 600 years, AND they sided with the Nazis in WW2. I bring this up not because I dislike Japan or have anything against it, but I'm simply pointing out the fact that we are ALL sinners and fall short of the objective standard of morality. No person, society, or nation is innocent.


 
See points #2 and #3 on my list. Once again, I feel these were neglected on purpose.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 8, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Yes, it does matter.
> 
> The argument you made was illogical and false.
> 
> ...



I am sure when the Civil rights movement was in full swing and young black college students were sitting at lunch counters fighting for their rights, many people considered them disrespectful trouble makers.  Sometimes you have to fight against injustice. Otherwise it never gets better.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2014)

Enyo said:


> Making a cherry picking comment (or anything similar) at the end of a statement immediately causes me to question the rest of what someone said, even if it made sense up until that point. It’s like giving someone a fair and accurate assessment of themselves and then giving a backhanded compliment at the end. Total red flag.
> 
> See points #2 and #3 on my list. Once again, I feel these were neglected on purpose.



Not at all, Enyo. The evil actions of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, et al should be evaluated as evil actions in and of themselves. I don't need to point out any other group in order to condemn the evil actions of atheistic Communist regimes or persons. Likewise, when I see an instance of a Christian or Christian society sinning, I condemn it as well. A Christian who commits mortal sin is in danger of Hell.

The atheists in this thread are arguing that they can be good without God and live in moral, peaceful societies. I simply pointed out that it's not true, because we have real life examples of atheists and atheist-run governments committing evil.

Both the sinning Christian and sinning atheist are wrong. And I can judge *both* to be wrong because there is an objective moral standard by which to judge both of them.


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 8, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> But that is an unfair judgment just as someone else's unfair judgment about trying to be better than the "other."  In my world, we are all the same, and we are all G-d's children (as in all on equal ground).  Some know His oral and written laws, some don't, but all know the ones innate or inherent on their hearts.  That's what objective morality is....it's beyond us and put into place to where we are born into those conditions.  They are universal.  Of course, I've explained it from a position of believing there is a g-d.  We all know murdering is wrong etc.  How so?  What determines that...and etc.??  The red enboldened is the problem, because that's a subjective opinion.  It's not necessarily true of others but until we actually know what other people believe, we should not make such judgments.  We might be wrong.  That goes for all of us.



We all judge. However I don't judge what I think people believe I really don't. Well maybe when it imposes on my beliefs or lack there of.

So really I judge people actions. Do as I say not as I do type of thing. Hated it when my mom or pastor said it to me. Still don't agree with it today. 

I still think that a rational person can sit down a negotiate with another rational person or group of people come to an agreement on how they would like to work, live in society together without claiming god(s) will do x or y to you if you do a or b.

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Apr 8, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> nah never happened.  It is true a book was created by a bunch of men and a govenment in the 4th century that said all this stuff.  but outside of that book, there is no evidence that any of it ever happened.



Whether you believe it or not, you see and breathe his existence every day, all things were made my him, and in him all things consists.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 8, 2014)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> Whether you believe it or not, you see and breathe his existence every day, all things were made my him, and in him all things consists.



Saying it, even believing it doesn't make it real, or true.  
Every day we make new discoveries about the world around us, and none of it So far is leading to proof of a supernatural being.

the god belief was made up of by people who didn't understand the world around them, so they atributed the unknown to gods.  There have been Sun gods, and Lightening gods, and gods who sent messages by way of comets, and war gods, and love gods.

Just like there's an app for that, there was a god for that.


It just means man has a really active imagination.  

And even if there was proven to be some sort of creator of everything, it is a very big leap to say that creator is supernatural, and even bigger one to suggest we must worship it.

And why the constant indoctrination, when my Children were little I pointed to the sky and said that's the Sun.  I didn't not have to take them outside every Sunday for years and reinerate that's the sun, that's the sun, that's sun.  You must believe that's the sun.

I firmly believe if Parents didn't spend so much time trying to convience their children a god existed, there would be no god belief anymore.  but the only way for a god to exist is to keep saying until you believe it.  

But you don't have to do that with things that actually exist.  
SO I need more then mere belief I need Proof.  There is no proof.


----------



## Laela (Apr 9, 2014)

We all have different styles of communicating; it's unfortunate you see what I said as emotional. It's not.. I'm earnest about my prayer because I can only speak from my own experience. Just know I won't ever wish hell on you or anyone... that is an unGodly thing to do. 




BlkOnyx488 said:


> Laela Theist posted an article about Atheist. I merely came in here to refute the article, not discuss Christianity with Christians.
> Although I am not opposed to that.  However these Conversation tend to not go well, because Christians are so emtionaly invested in their belief, anyone that speaks out against the Christian Belief is accused of Attacking, then the Atheist usually gets threatened with eternal hayle fire or something.
> 
> So if theist are free to discuss Atheist, atheist should be free to discuss Atheist and theist.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 9, 2014)

Laela said:


> We all have different styles of communicating; it's unfortunate you see what I said as emotional. It's not.. I'm earnest about my prayer because I can only speak from my own experience. Just know I won't ever wish hell on you or anyone... that is an unGodly thing to do.


Laela I was not specifically saying you are overly emotional, I was speaking in General terms.  Not about anyone in particular.


----------



## momi (Apr 9, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> momi "People make Choices", so that dismisses the so called theist moral code completely.  That means the Atheist and Theist are free to do whatever they Choose.  Just as you are free to eat at Chick-fil-a.



I'm not understanding your reasoning here and can't imagine that I ever will. Anyone who ignores the obvious evidence of an Intelligent Designer chooses to do so willingly and to their own detriment.  If a person chooses to ignore miracles that are clearly seen like childbirth, sunrises, DNA, fingerprints, blood coagulation, monthly cycles.... there isn't anything I can offer but prayer.


----------



## momi (Apr 9, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> I agree, @Enyo, because just by the article rhetoric, it is pretty insulting suggesting that atheists have no morals and I do comprehend both sides of the argument and view truths each are making.



Insulting to whom?  The author is an atheist. Unless I posted the article giving commentary on the atheist's comments. It's been so long I can't recall...


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 9, 2014)

momi said:


> I'm not understanding your reasoning here and can't imagine that I ever will. Anyone who ignores the obvious evidence of an Intelligent Designer chooses to do so willingly and to their own detriment.  If a person chooses to ignore miracles that are clearly seen like childbirth, sunrises, DNA, fingerprints, blood coagulation, monthly cycles.... there isn't anything I can offer but prayer.



momi, I recently read a very interesting article about a scientist who converted from atheism to Christianity. He discussed the human eye, and how the amount of time needed just for the human eye to form and function as it does would've taken more time than the evolutionary timeline would allow. It was very fascinating!

A book that I enjoyed reading while in college was Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" which talks about irreducible complexity:



> By _irreducibly complex_ I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 9, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> @Laela I was not specifically saying you are overly emotional, I was speaking in General terms.  Not about anyone in particular.




But about everyone christian, in particular.  Perhaps you don't see how insulting you are to refer to anyone's religious texts as "babble."  I would not disrespect you, you should not disrespect anyone else, esp. if your family remains christian.  How are you to judge when you used to be a christian?  That's like saying, "I don't like blue people, they're stupid because they think this way," and you're teal now.  Do you speak about any christian family you have in such ways?  

I am not the one to tell anyone not to communicate their beliefs/non-beliefs.  Believe me, I've had countless run-ins on CF and accusations of "evil," however, it's quite clear _you_ are emotionally charged about your religious shift.  It's not necessary.  I hear you.  Maybe you  should remove the emotionalism and stop generalizing?  It's highly insulting, even to me.  Just plain don't insult.  It's called "the bible" and writing it as "the bible" doesn't mean that you are forced to believe in it.  You are not.  Do unto others...and that's an objective morality.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 9, 2014)

momi said:


> Insulting to whom?  The author is an atheist. Unless I posted the article giving commentary on the atheist's comments. It's been so long I can't recall...





To atheists to imply that they do not have morals, whether he himself is an atheist or not.  It's a pretty extreme article and is why some of the atheists even doubt it's a true atheist who wrote it.  I'm just saying that the respect metre is blinking in the red on both sides.  I comprehend both points of view even though I might not agree.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 9, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> But about everyone christian, in particular.  Perhaps you don't see how insulting you are to refer to anyone's religious texts as "babble."  I would not disrespect you, you should disrespect anyone else, esp. if your family remains christian.  How are you to judge when you used to be a christian?  That's like saying, "I don't like blue people, they're stupid because they think this way," and you're teal now.  Do you speak about any christian family you have in such ways?
> 
> I am not the one to tell anyone not to communicate their beliefs/non-beliefs.  Believe me, I've had countless run-ins on CF and accusations of "evil," however, it's quite clear _you_ are emotionally charged about your religious shift.  It's not necessary.  I hear you.  Maybe you  should remove the emotionalism and stop generalizing?  It's highly insulting, even to me.  Just plain don't insult.  It's called "the bible" and writing it as "the bible" doesn't mean that you are forced to believe in it.  You are not.  Do unto others...and that's an objective morality.




THIS. ...


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 9, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> To atheists to imply that they do not have morals, whether he himself is an atheist or not.  It's a pretty extreme article and is why some of the atheists even doubt it's a true atheist who wrote it.  I'm just saying that the respect metre is blinking in the red on both sides.  I comprehend both points of view even though I might not agree.



JB, I saw it as a calling out from one atheist to others about the reality of espousing moral subjectivism. There are more atheists who hold to subjective morality or moral relativism than objective.


----------



## curlicarib (Apr 9, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> But about everyone christian, in particular. Perhaps you don't see how insulting you are to refer to anyone's religious texts as "babble." I would not disrespect you, you should not disrespect anyone else, esp. if your family remains christian. How are you to judge when you used to be a christian? That's like saying, "I don't like blue people, they're stupid because they think this way," and you're teal now. Do you speak about any christian family you have in such ways?
> 
> I am not the one to tell anyone not to communicate their beliefs/non-beliefs. Believe me, I've had countless run-ins on CF and accusations of "evil," however, it's quite clear _you_ are emotionally charged about your religious shift. It's not necessary. I hear you. Maybe you should remove the emotionalism and stop generalizing? It's highly insulting, even to me. Just plain don't insult. It's called "the bible" and writing it as "the bible" doesn't mean that you are forced to believe in it. You are not. Do unto others...and that's an objective morality.


 
As a former "bathed in the blood", born again christian, I have to agree.  We can have a respectful discussion without the insults.  Do unto others, indeed.


----------



## momi (Apr 9, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> momi, I recently read a very interesting article about a scientist who converted from atheism to Christianity. He discussed the human eye, and how the amount of time needed just for the human eye to form and function as it does would've taken more time than the evolutionary timeline would allow. It was very fascinating!  A book that I enjoyed reading while in college was Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" which talks about irreducible complexity:



Yes ma'am. Irreducible complexity and the law of fine tuning are excellent examples of God's existence!


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 9, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> But about everyone christian, in particular.  Perhaps you don't see how insulting you are to refer to anyone's religious texts as "babble."  I would not disrespect you, you should not disrespect anyone else, esp. if your family remains christian.  How are you to judge when you used to be a christian?  That's like saying, "I don't like blue people, they're stupid because they think this way," and you're teal now.  Do you speak about any christian family you have in such ways?
> 
> I am not the one to tell anyone not to communicate their beliefs/non-beliefs.  Believe me, I've had countless run-ins on CF and accusations of "evil," however, it's quite clear _you_ are emotionally charged about your religious shift.  It's not necessary.  I hear you.  Maybe you  should remove the emotionalism and stop generalizing?  It's highly insulting, even to me.  Just plain don't insult.  It's called "the bible" and writing it as "the bible" doesn't mean that you are forced to believe in it.  You are not.  Do unto others...and that's an objective morality.



JaneBond007 My mother and I have wonderful Conversations about the babble she doesn't care what I call it. 

It's just text to me, I don't hold it any higher reguard than I do a harry potter book.  

that should not have any effect on how you feel about that book.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 9, 2014)

momi said:


> I'm not understanding your reasoning here and can't imagine that I ever will. Anyone who ignores the obvious evidence of an *Intelligent Designer chooses to do so willingly and to their own detriment*.  If a person chooses to ignore miracles that are clearly seen like childbirth, sunrises, DNA, fingerprints, blood coagulation, monthly cycles.... there isn't anything I can offer but prayer.



momi what do you mean by, "to your own detriment"?

if we are intelligently designed why did the god of the OT screw up when he made the penis?


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 9, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> @JaneBond007 My mother and I have wonderful Conversations about the babble she doesn't care what I call it.
> 
> It's just text to me, I don't hold it any higher reguard than I do a harry potter book.
> 
> that should not have any effect on how you feel about that book.




It's just text to you but I'm not your mother.   At your office, important manuals might be crap to you but I bet you won't refer to it that way to your boss.  You know exactly what we are talking about.  If you wish to receive respect, learn to give it.  It'd make for a better discussion and a fair one at that.  Make this level playing ground.  Saying "the bible" won't kill you.  Reason I say this, you don't realize just how emotionally angry you sound yourself.  It's over the top, actually, and it reveals a whole lot about you.  I might not read the Bhagavad Gita but I was raised in my culture to respect the beliefs of others and that means that I would never refer to it as "babble," certainly not to the face of it's follower if I wanted to be seen as a respectful  person.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 9, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> It's just text to you but I'm not your mother.   At your office, important manuals might be crap to you but I bet you won't refer to it that way to your boss.  You know exactly what we are talking about.  If you wish to receive respect, learn to give it.  It'd make for a better discussion and a fair one at that.  Make this level playing ground.  Saying "the bible" won't kill you.  Reason I say this, you don't realize just how emotionally angry you sound yourself.  It's over the top, actually, and it reveals a whole lot about you.  I might not read the Bhagavad Gita but I was raised in my culture to respect the beliefs of others and that means that I would never refer to it as "babble," certainly not to the face of it's follower if I wanted to be seen as a respectful  person.



JaneBond007 

You suggested that my Christian family would be upset with the term babble.  Therefore I said My mother doesn't care what i call it

Now you mention an Office, well I run my own business,  I have no use for that book in my business.  and I have no Sacred Manuals
MY Calling it a "babble" won't kill you either.  

I am not angry, far from it.  I think this is silly, my words don't effect your feelings for that book, but some how if I don't give it the proper reverence you feel I should have for IT, I am angry.  but you seem upset by that.

but I am not angry and I hope you are having a great day


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 9, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> @JaneBond007
> 
> You suggested that my Christian family would be upset with the term babble.  Therefore I said My mother doesn't care what i call it
> 
> ...




Basically, I'm asking if you are disrespectful with your christian family by saying anything nasty about what they value.  If not, great.  However, you have to know your audience.  I'm not upset, I'm finding the respectful balance here.  It's not only me who notices.  I mean, I had some questions about Ratzinger (when he was Cardinal and after becoming Pope Benedict XVI) but you know, I never fired off a nasty letter to him either.    Thanks for the explanation, I truly appreciate it.
PS.  And believe you me, I've had people buck out eyes and proclaim, "Chutzpah!" about what I say ahaha and it's nowhere here in this forum.


----------



## momi (Apr 9, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> momi what do you mean by, "to your own detriment"?
> 
> if we are intelligently designed why did the god of the OT screw up when he made the penis?



To your own detriment you have chosen to deny the Creator of our Universe - one day you will meet Him and He will have to deny you. The Bible speaks about a gnashing of teeth in hell which is a deep regret for having rejected the truth. 

I truly do not want that for you and Jesus said He does not desire for anyone to perish - but ultimately the choice is ours.


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 9, 2014)

Laela said:


> It boggles the mind, the effort it takes someone to disprove something they don't' even believe exists in the first place.



Laela atheist are not trying to "disprove" anything
Atheist simply reject the assertion that a god exist.

The burden of Proof is not on the atheist.

If I tell you I just got a new car, it would make no sense if I looked at you and said, Now Prove I have a new Car.

The burden of proof would be on me to prove to you, I got the car.  Not the other way around.

Theist say, a god exist
atheist say, ok Prove it.
that's it


----------



## pre_medicalrulz (Apr 9, 2014)

Oh my word. Im not playing in this thread. I choose life so with said DUECES!!


----------



## Enyo (Apr 10, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Not at all, Enyo. The evil actions of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, et al should be evaluated as evil actions in and of themselves. I don't need to point out any other group in order to condemn the evil actions of atheistic Communist regimes or persons. Likewise, when I see an instance of a Christian or Christian society sinning, I condemn it as well. A Christian who commits mortal sin is in danger of Hell.  The atheists in this thread are arguing that they can be good without God and live in moral, peaceful societies. I simply pointed out that it's not true, because we have real life examples of atheists and atheist-run governments committing evil.  Both the sinning Christian and sinning atheist are wrong. And I can judge *both* to be wrong because there is an objective moral standard by which to judge both of them.


  Lol I know how to cook healthy meals and realize I should eat them more often. But I never do because I don't want to. Saying I can't possibly know how to make a veggie dish or that I am ignorant about health just based on my actions is silly. It doesn't suit my agenda of wanting to eat fatty foods, so I don't do it.   Lots of atheist who commit detrimental actions know they are wrong just like religious people do.   

Annnnd, once again, how do you explain why there are so many religious countries that are violent and unstable and so many completely secular ones that have an extremely high quality of life? 

Like someone else said, just because you say something does not make it true. You have given absolutely no real evidence of anything. Just the whole bunch of opinions and I don't find that to be acceptable.


----------



## curlicarib (Apr 10, 2014)

BlkOnyx488 said:


> @Laela atheist are not trying to "disprove" anything
> Atheist simply reject the assertion that a god exist.
> 
> The burden of Proof is not on the atheist.
> ...


 
I agree.  I have no desire to disprove god.  I just have no proof that there is a god.  And please don't point me to the bible.  A good proof has multiple sources.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Apr 10, 2014)

curlicarib said:


> I agree.  I have no desire to disprove god.  I just have no proof that there is a god.  And please don't point me to the bible.  A good proof has multiple sources.



Can in ask you a question? At what point did you become an atheist? Were you raised in church or attended church at some point but later became an atheist? Or have you been an atheist as long as you could remember? Just curious.


----------



## curlicarib (Apr 10, 2014)

MrsHaseeb said:


> Can in ask you a question? At what point did you become an atheist? Were you raised in church or attended church at some point but later became an atheist? Or have you been an atheist as long as you could remember? Just curious.


 
I was raised christian, acepted Jesus and was baptised in my mid-teens.  In my late teens, the reality of the bible being sexist, racist, violent, mysgonistic, started me asking questions.  My questions lead to researching the origins of Jesus and Christianity.  The answers lead to more questions the most important of which was..................why was Christianity basically a recycling of an older more ancient religion called Zorastorism and why did it share so many commonalities with other ancient religions.  If what Christanity espouses as truth, that Jesus is the Son of GOD and he is the way, the truth and the light, then why do so many other religions that came before say basically the same thing?  Nothing in chrisitanity is original - the virgin birth, the rising from the dead, the trinity - none of it is original.  Why?

When I couldn't get any good answersfrom my pastor or his co-horts, I decided that I could not give my life over to a belief that I could not believe in.

Simple, right?  LOL!


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Apr 10, 2014)

curlicarib said:


> I was raised christian, acepted Jesus and was baptised in my mid-teens.  In my late teens, the reality of the bible being sexist, racist, violent, mysgonistic, started me asking questions.  My questions lead to researching the origins of Jesus and Christianity.  The answers lead to more questions the most important of which was..................why was Christianity basically a recycling of an older more ancient religion called Zorastorism and why did it share so many commonalities with other ancient religions.  If what Christanity espouses as truth, that Jesus is the Son of GOD and he is the way, the truth and the light, then why do so many other religions that came before say basically the same thing?  Nothing in chrisitanity is original - the virgin birth, the rising from the dead, the trinity - none of it is original.  Why?
> 
> When I couldn't get any good answersfrom my pastor or his co-horts, I decided that I could not give my life over to a belief that I could not believe in.
> 
> Simple, right?  LOL!



Thank you  I have found that many atheist and agnostics in the black community grew up in church. I was just wondering.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 10, 2014)

Enyo said:


> Lol I know how to cook healthy meals and realize I should eat them more often. But I never do because I don't want to.



 tell me about it. Sometimes what we know we ought to do--and what we actually do--are two different things.



Enyo said:


> Saying I can't possibly know how to make a veggie dish or that I am ignorant about health just based on my actions is silly.



I agree. My argument isn't that atheists don't know what morality is. My argument is that when the atheist denies objective morality, it creates an issue for his/her moral worldview, because then he must look inside himself to come up with a moral code (subjectivity). And if he determines what's right and wrong based on his subjective judgment, then whenever he commits an objectively evil act, he may subjectively judge it as good or not-evil. He would be in error for this.

I think there is a core morality that's written on all our hearts no matter who we are. However, the FULLNESS of moral truth has been given to us by God. So while an atheist can agree with me murder is wrong, his morality falls into error when he advocates abortion (murder of the unborn).



Enyo said:


> Lots of atheist who commit detrimental actions know they are wrong just like religious people do.



Agreed. Both religious and non-religious people commit sin because they simply choose to. Mostly, both groups do it out of weakness, and some of them (from both groups) do it out of malice.



Enyo said:


> Annnnd, once again, how do you explain why there are so many religious countries that are violent and unstable and so many completely secular ones that have an extremely high quality of life?



This question meshes a few things together. I assume by quality of life you mean health, home, education, freedom, recourse to a civil justice system, and relative safety/protection. A violent or unstable society can definitely affect quality of life. However, how are you defining "religious country" and "secular country"?

The following is from an online CNN article on the Top 10 Most Unstable Countries:


> Afghanistan, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo also ranked in the top five.
> 
> 
> Egypt has been downgraded  to "extreme risk" for the first time as a result of violence following  the ousting of former President Mohamed Morsy and an increase in  terrorist attacks in the Sinai Peninsula, the report said.
> ...



A "religious" or religion-friendly government can commit oppression and destabilizing actions, as well as a secular one (such as North Korea, China, etc.)

I think it has more to do with a struggle for power, and the brutal methods to obtain it, as well as war-waging, and the structure of the government and who is running the government. Governments that are headed by a single dictator (North Korea, for example) is going to offer less quality of life than a democracy which is accountable to voters. Heck, the Vatican is a city-state ruled by a religious monarch (Pope Francis) and it is not war-torn or bulldozing people.

So I think several factors come into play, such as the country's size, geographic location, history, culture, wealth/economy, type of government (monarchy, democracy, Communist), etc. It's not a simple matter of "This is all due to religion or lack thereof."

When I spoke earlier of atheist Communist Soviet Russia, it was to reject the stereotype that if you're religious you're automatically evil/violent/hateful and if you're atheist, you're automatically peaceful and a humanitarian. My argument is that we are all fallen and all sinful. The difference between us though is that I have more access to more moral truths, and I have a greater responsibility.


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 10, 2014)

curlicarib said:


> I was raised christian, acepted Jesus and was baptised in my mid-teens.  In my late teens, the reality of the bible being sexist, racist, violent, mysgonistic, started me asking questions.  My questions lead to researching the origins of Jesus and Christianity.  The answers lead to more questions the most important of which was..................why was Christianity basically a recycling of an older more ancient religion called Zorastorism and why did it share so many commonalities with other ancient religions.  If what Christanity espouses as truth, that Jesus is the Son of GOD and he is the way, the truth and the light, then why do so many other religions that came before say basically the same thing?  Nothing in chrisitanity is original - the virgin birth, the rising from the dead, the trinity - none of it is original.  Why?  When I couldn't get any good answersfrom my pastor or his co-horts, I decided that I could not give my life over to a belief that I could not believe in.  Simple, right?  LOL!



Man! This parallels my story as well. Only I went through communion and the following year confirmation knowing full well I didn't believe.


telling mother I didn't believe, and during confirmation telling my pastor I didn't believe. 

I was told to basically shut up and conform cause you know I was still living under my parents roof. My pastor basically told my brother and I to just state we were agnostic during our final counseling session. He had us meet with him at the same time because we were the only ones in class speaking up and asking questions. 

He could see where we heading. 

No skin off my back to kneel and repeat some words and drink some manaschevitz (sp).

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 10, 2014)

[USER=28031]Galadriel[/USER];19916969 said:
			
		

> tell me about it. Sometimes what we know we ought to do--and what we actually do--are two different things.  I agree. My argument isn't that atheists don't know what morality is. My argument is that when the atheist denies objective morality, it creates an issue for his/her moral worldview, because then he must look inside himself to come up with a moral code (subjectivity). And if he determines what's right and wrong based on his subjective judgment, then whenever he commits an objectively evil act, he may subjectively judge it as good or not-evil. He would be in error for this.  I think there is a core morality that's written on all our hearts no matter who we are. However, the FULLNESS of moral truth has been given to us by God. So while an atheist can agree with me murder is wrong, his morality falls into error when he advocates abortion (murder of the unborn).  Agreed. Both religious and non-religious people commit sin because they simply choose to. Mostly, both groups do it out of weakness, and some of them (from both groups) do it out of malice.  This question meshes a few things together. I assume by quality of life you mean health, home, education, freedom, recourse to a civil justice system, and relative safety/protection. A violent or unstable society can definitely affect quality of life. However, how are you defining "religious country" and "secular country"?  The following is from an online CNN article on the Top 10 Most Unstable Countries:  A "religious" or religion-friendly government can commit oppression and destabilizing actions, as well as a secular one (such as North Korea, China, etc.)  I think it has more to do with a struggle for power, and the brutal methods to obtain it, as well as war-waging, and the structure of the government and who is running the government. Governments that are headed by a single dictator (North Korea, for example) is going to offer less quality of life than a democracy which is accountable to voters. Heck, the Vatican is a city-state ruled by a religious monarch (Pope Francis) and it is not war-torn or bulldozing people.  So I think several factors come into play, such as the country's size, geographic location, history, culture, wealth/economy, type of government (monarchy, democracy, Communist), etc. It's not a simple matter of "This is all due to religion or lack thereof."  When I spoke earlier of atheist Communist Soviet Russia, it was to reject the stereotype that if you're religious you're automatically evil/violent/hateful and if you're atheist, you're automatically peaceful and a humanitarian. My argument is that we are all fallen and all sinful. The difference between us though is that I have more access to more moral truths, and I have a greater responsibility.



I can't speak for China - I would have to do some research. But for the others former and current Soviet Union and North Korea, I would argue that their leaders (dictators) are idolized as Gods. 

Also within Russia they have various orthodox religions Christian Jewish etc in addition to Muslims. 

Actually now I am getting confused. The US isn't a theocracy even though there are many here in the US who wish that wasn't the case. So is the US an atheist country? You know because if separation of state and religion?

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 10, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> I can't speak for China - I would have to do some research. But for the others former and current Soviet Union and North Korea, I would argue that their leaders (dictators) are idolized as Gods.
> 
> Also within Russia they have various orthodox religions Christian Jewish etc in addition to Muslims.
> 
> ...



I think the U.S. has a secular government, but culturally we tend to be a religious nation. I think the stat is 85% of Americans identify as some form of Christian?


----------



## BlkOnyx488 (Apr 15, 2014)

momi said:


> To your own detriment you have chosen to deny the Creator of our Universe - one day you will meet Him and He will have to deny you. The Bible speaks about a gnashing of teeth in hell which is a deep regret for having rejected the truth.
> 
> I truly do not want that for you and Jesus said He does not desire for anyone to perish - but ultimately the choice is ours.


momi

Ahh the Hell threat
Jews don't believe there is a hell, in fact many Christian faiths don't believe there's hell you go to at death.  And their are some Christians that do believe in hell, but don't agree it is a literal place.

So until all the Christians can come to an agreement about whether an actual hell exist or not, I will not be losing any sleep over this utter nonsense. 

Please don't threaten me with your Dogma 
thank you

Peace and Love


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 15, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> Man! This parallels my story as well. Only I went through communion and the following year confirmation knowing full well I didn't believe.
> 
> 
> telling mother I didn't believe, and during confirmation telling my pastor I didn't believe.
> ...



Because you are agnostic, atheist etc., basically, with no faith to believe the religion you were raised in. I get that.    But being the only ones in class speaking up and asking questions probably just means the others had faith to understand what they were being taught and they believed in it.   Although you didn't say it, I am just pointing to this to say in general that it doesn't mean they didn't have any questions.  They were probably knowledgeable and willing to accept what they were supposed to know by confirmation.  I'm sure they've had questions since but that doesn't necessarily mean questions about the veracity of the existence of G-d.  You're supposed to have questions.  People of faith don't have the same questions that agnostice and atheists have.  For example, I might question what is allegory vs. literal and parable but won't try and find something that proves there is no G-d or "proves" that the scriptures etc. are fantasy.  Faithful and agnostics start at different points.


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 15, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Because you are agnostic, atheist etc., basically, with no faith to believe the religion you were raised in. I get that.    But being the only ones in class speaking up and asking questions probably just means the others had faith to understand what they were being taught and they believed in it.   Although you didn't say it, I am just pointing to this to say in general that it doesn't mean they didn't have any questions.  They were probably knowledgeable and willing to accept what they were supposed to know by confirmation.  I'm sure they've had questions since but that doesn't necessarily mean questions about the veracity of the existence of G-d.  You're supposed to have questions.  People of faith don't have the same questions that agnostice and atheists have.  For example, I might question what is allegory vs. literal and parable but won't try and find something that proves there is no G-d or "proves" that the scriptures etc. are fantasy.  Faithful and agnostics start at different points.


  Great assumption!  My observation/ recollection - The girls were focused in boys and the boys focused on girls. They didn't do any required readings and were generally peeved when we spoke up. Annoyed that we turned in assignments. Then later on started copying our answers.   We were already classified as snooty and thought we were better than everyone else because we went to private school and didn't live in the projects or government housing.   Yeah you definitely assumed correctly - they had faith and we did not. Knowledgeable? ...  

Eta. Didn't read your whole post till after I posted. Our initial pastors didn't talk about allegory or literal, etc. They were a huge disservice to us. Their answer was you just have to believe and have faith.  My last pastor explained things much better and was easier to talk to and open to conversation and true discussion. 


God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 15, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> Great assumption!  My observation/ recollection - The girls were focused in boys and the boys focused on girls. They didn't do any required readings and were generally peeved when we spoke up. Annoyed that we turned in assignments. Then later on started copying our answers.   We were already classified as snooty and thought we were better than everyone else because we went to private school and didn't live in the projects or government housing.   Yeah you definitely assumed correctly - they had faith and we did not. Knowledgeable? ...
> 
> Eta. Didn't read your whole post till after I posted. Our initial pastors didn't talk about allegory or literal, etc. They were a huge disservice to us. Their answer was you just have to believe and have faith.  My last pastor explained things much better and was easier to talk to and open to conversation and true discussion.
> 
> ...




itsallaboutattitude I think some people interpret having questions as an automatic challenge or put-down, but I wished more people in religious teaching positions would take it as an opportunity to delve into deeper questions. And, if they don't know the answer, they should be honest and then maybe they can research/read/hash it out as a group. 

I didn't grow up Christian, but came in as a convert. I had tons of questions, and it helped that I had patient and knowledgeable Christians to help point me toward theological books, historical research, etc.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 15, 2014)

itsallaboutattitude said:


> Great assumption!  My observation/ recollection - The girls were focused in boys and the boys focused on girls. They didn't do any required readings and were generally peeved when we spoke up. Annoyed that we turned in assignments. Then later on started copying our answers.   We were already classified as snooty and thought we were better than everyone else because we went to private school and didn't live in the projects or government housing.   Yeah you definitely assumed correctly - they had faith and we did not. Knowledgeable? ...
> 
> Eta. Didn't read your whole post till after I posted. Our initial pastors didn't talk about allegory or literal, etc. They were a huge disservice to us. Their answer was you just have to believe and have faith.  My last pastor explained things much better and was easier to talk to and open to conversation and true discussion.
> 
> ...



Unless I missed your recollection before...I didn't see it.  I still think that those who have their minds made up to either believe or not believe/looking for disproof begin at different points.  I've often heard people amazed that others do not question things.  I think there are diff. personalities that constantly raise questions.  But I was trying to say that believers and nonbelievers begin at different starting points.  One wants to edify his faith, the other wants proof to show that it's untrue.  I'm sure your teacher was under fire lol to keep a certain demeanor, esp. at something important as a confirmation class, for the sake of everyone involved.  I don't know if he was a nice guy, but I think it would have been right to take you two out.  Why confirm where there is no belief?  That's against the faith itself and the humanity of a person.  At least they allowed you two to explain it although they knew beforehand.  You can't force religion on anybody.


----------



## itsallaboutattitude (Apr 15, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Unless I missed your recollection before...I didn't see it.  I still think that those who have their minds made up to either believe or not believe/looking for disproof begin at different points.  I've often heard people amazed that others do not question things.  I think there are diff. personalities that constantly raise questions.  But I was trying to say that believers and nonbelievers begin at different starting points.  One wants to edify his faith, the other wants proof to show that it's untrue.  I'm sure your teacher was under fire lol to keep a certain demeanor, esp. at something important as a confirmation class, for the sake of everyone involved.  I don't know if he was a nice guy, but I think it would have been right to take you two out.  Why confirm where there is no belief?  That's against the faith itself and the humanity of a person.  At least they allowed you two to explain it although they knew beforehand.  You can't force religion on anybody.



Just to clarify we went thru first communion with two pastors. Then we went thru confirmation with a different pastor. Confirmation pastor actually studied multiple religions before becoming a Lutheran pastor. He opened my mind to studying other religions. 

That's why I usually say religion is a construct of man by men so that men could live together in society. I get it. 

Anarchy is few and far between in most societies today.

God is an alien, and we are living under a microscope.


----------

