The Real Consequences of Atheism

[BlkOnyx488]

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

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.

 

[Galadriel]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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.



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.



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.



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.



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 ).

 

[JaneBond007]

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]

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.

Well said. Where's that slow clap gif?

 

[Galadriel]

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.

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.

 

[Galadriel]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Studying in a Class room is not the same as believe in divinity or burn for enternity


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.

I have not even begun to demonstrat fully what I know and don't know because as I said earlier I am terse. I have always called it a Babble, makes me laugh



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?

First of all these a Feminist, I didn't hear where they were called atheist
Secondly they also protested the porn industry so their interest is women's rights.
Thirdly, the church would not have to deal with protest of this nature if they stopped trying to force people to live by their religious beliefs. These women are fighting against an injustice as they see it. Perhaps if the Catholic church stopped treating women like baby making factories. the protest would end.

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.
SEX aka Fornication is not wrong if we are talking about two consenting adults or three or four or whatever. Pornography is ok to as long as it involves consenting adults.
The god of the babble had no problem killing infants when it suited him. Nor did he have a problem with Priest causing women to miscarry if they were accused of having commited Adultry and got Pregnant

Also as it relates to Abortion with the number of reported Abortions every year, it is pretty clear that a lot of those aborted babies have theist mommies. a lot of those babies are being aborted because the good christian girls that are getting knocked up, are afraid to tell their parents they were out fornicating. Maybe is Sex was not treated as such a taboo subject, parents and children could have honest discussions about their natural urges. And they can honestly discuss ways to protect themselves from disease and unwanted pregnancies .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.