Without God, atheists have no morals and will eat babies on a whim etc.

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

Christianity isn't about giving people morals. It's about giving people forgiveness.

Which is my original point isn't it? Christians who commit a crime are personally forgiven by the master of the universe and gain entry to his kingdom above. So what's to stop them.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Europe? Good behaviour? lol

Christianity isn't about giving people morals. It's about giving people forgiveness.

I think a lot of christians would disagree with you saying that christianity is not about giving people morals

Or are you saying that it does give morals but that's not its main purpose?

pH

Húrin wrote: »

Europe? Good behaviour? lol

Christianity isn't about giving people morals. It's about giving people forgiveness.

Excellent post, your first that I agree with, Christianity certainly does not give people morals or make them behave better to their fellow man, yet it does, as you point out allow them to feel much better about their acts once they are sure they've been 'forgiven' by God.

Valmont

I regularly eat babies on a whim, it's why I became an atheist in the first place!

Sam Vimes

pH wrote: »

Excellent post, your first that I agree with, Christianity certainly does not give people morals or make them behave better to their fellow man, yet it does, as you point out allow them to feel much better about their acts once they are sure they've been 'forgiven' by God.

You're right actually. I still stand by my statement that a lot of christians wouldn't agree with him but atheists certainly would

bnt

This whole issue became clearer to me once I learned the differences between Morals and Ethics. Here's how I put it when I wrote an answer for asktheatheists.com :
Morals|Ethics
top-down|bottom-up
fixed in time|evolving
"thou shalt (not)"|"first do no harm"
perfect|can be improved
do not question, just obey|you can argue and contribute
religious teachings and scripture|laws and codes of conduct

The other answers are also instructive: it's a good site for clearing up misconceptions theists may have about atheists, such as this one.

When it comes to Ethics, IMHO the trick is identifiying your "peers": it might be fellow professionals, such as other doctors or engineers. Or, it might just be other people, your fellow human beings. That's not a guarantee of anything in itself, of course: lawyers, bankers, and thieves also have "codes of ethics", allegedly. :cool:

ChocolateSauce

Giving people forgiveness regardless of their crime cheapens the concept. Some things are unforgivable, and others should only be forgiven when certain milestones are met. If forgiveness is handed out willy nilly, why bother trying to make up for the bad things you've done?

stevejazzx

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Giving people forgiveness regardless of their crime cheapens the concept. Some things are unforgivable, and others should only be forgiven when certain milestones are met. If forgiveness is handed out willy nilly, why bother trying to make up for the bad things you've done?

Theology 101 - if you automatically expect forgiveness you don't get it.
You have to be truly sorry. It's a loophole actually invented because of your exact point. It would be too easy for people to be simply forgiven in all circumstances. So presumption is a sin, not only are you not forgiven but you've sinned further. I don't know when this was brought as official church doctrine (I imagine it's governed by a vague verse in the bible) perhaps an illustrious Christian mod might clear that one up.
Atheists on this forum still use the poor rendered argument of Christian forgiveness without considering the angles the Christan's have already covered.

pH

stevejazzx wrote: »

Theology 101 - if you automatically expect forgiveness you don't get it.
You have to be truly sorry. It's a loophole actually invented because of your exact point. It would be too easy for people to be simply forgiven in all circumstances. So presumption is a sin, not only are you not forgiven but you've sinned further. I don't know when this was brought as official church doctrine (I imagine it's governed by a vague verse in the bible) perhaps an illustrious Christian mod might clear that one up.
Atheists on this forum still use the poor rendered argument of Christian forgiveness without considering the angles the Christan's have already covered.

Ahhh grasshopper ... WELCOME TO THEOLOGY 102

So you committed the first sin expecting to be forgiven, so you sinned twice ... but you can be forgiven *even* for that (providing of course you're *truly* sorry for committing the first sin knowing that you'd be asking for forgiveness later).

stevejazzx

pH wrote: »

Ahhh grasshopper ... WELCOME TO THEOLOGY 102

So you committed the first sin expecting to be forgiven, so you sinned twice ... but you can be forgiven *even* for that (providing of course you're *truly* sorry for committing the first sin knowing that you'd be asking for forgiveness later).

yes and no.
Originally you might have had 'presumption'. But in the aftermath, you know, after a theologian has sat and discoursed with you on the topic for an hour) you might say in earnest 'ahhhhh!' ok well now i truly am sorry'.
But if you're faking God knows! A bit like Santa before Christmas and all the naughty kids acting all nice as if butter wouldn't melt just so they can get hooked up by the the fat guy in the red suit.

ChocolateSauce

stevejazzx wrote: »

Theology 101 - if you automatically expect forgiveness you don't get it.
You have to be truly sorry. It's a loophole actually invented because of your exact point. It would be too easy for people to be simply forgiven in all circumstances. So presumption is a sin, not only are you not forgiven but you've sinned further. I don't know when this was brought as official church doctrine (I imagine it's governed by a vague verse in the bible) perhaps an illustrious Christian mod might clear that one up.
Atheists on this forum still use the poor rendered argument of Christian forgiveness without considering the angles the Christan's have already covered.

God is all forgiving, it says so in the Bible. God himself is the biggest forgiver, so by inventing this clause to patch over a loophole, aren't churches subverting the will of God?

Now, if they could just explain how an all loving and all forgiving and all powerful god allows hell....I don't see how they could logically patch that little flaw up!

But if you're faking God knows! A bit like Santa before Christmas and all the naughty kids acting all nice as if butter wouldn't melt just so they can get hooked up by the the fat guy in the red suit.

And a bit like Santa, god is just a made up story told to people to get them to fall in line and be good...and being good is doing what your superiors tell you.

Botany Bay

Húrin wrote: »

The statement that "God exists" is not a religion. It is a philosophical position based on observations of the world.

No it's not.


It's an hypothesis, and an unnecessary one at that. It most certainly is not based on observation. Certainly not observation of anything in the natural world. Its assumption is predicated on the mere imagination and ignorance of the subject/s.

philologos

Botany Bay wrote: »

It's an hypothesis, and an unnecessary one at that. It most certainly is not based on observation. Certainly not observation of anything in the natural world. Its assumption is predicated on the mere imagination and ignorance of the subject/s.

It's certainly based on observation about how the truth that God has revealed to you effects you spiritually, and in your daily life. This is the one thing about Christianity that atheists will forever misunderstand and underestimate until they experience it for themselves. Hurín obviously mentioned it, because Hurín has had spiritual experiences in the past.

As an aside though, it only takes a rational creature to understand that the universe cannot have formed itself. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

The statement that "God exists" is not a religion. It is a philosophical position based on observations of the world.

Botany Bay wrote: »

No it's not.

It's an hypothesis, and an unnecessary one at that. It most certainly is not based on observation. Certainly not observation of anything in the natural world.

Exactly. Notice the way Húrin threw in the word "philosophical" and not "scientific". Húrin likes to live in the gray, murky world of philosophy. From this he has the freedom to claim anything he observes adds weight to his philosophical position, and he would be correct. But this in itself does not give credence to his claim, rather it highlights the absurdity of a lot of philosophy.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's certainly based on observation about how the truth that God has revealed to you effects you spiritually, and in your daily life. This is the one thing about Christianity that atheists will forever misunderstand and underestimate until they experience it for themselves. Hurín obviously mentioned it, because Hurín has had spiritual experiences in the past.

As an aside though, it only takes a rational creature to understand that the universe cannot have formed itself. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

Maybe off topic but I saw your post and I was wondering what you position was on the question of whether everything needs a creator? I'd think its more rational to say that its probably impossible to know the nature of the universe.

marco_polo

Jakkass wrote: »

As an aside though, it only takes a rational creature to understand that the universe cannot have formed itself. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

So you would not consider Steven Hawking to be a rational person then?

Botany Bay

Jakkass wrote: »

It's certainly based on observation about how the truth that God has revealed to you effects you spiritually, and in your daily life. This is the one thing about Christianity that atheists will forever misunderstand and underestimate until they experience it for themselves. Hurín obviously mentioned it, because Hurín has had spiritual experiences in the past.

Ah. The argument from personal experience, the subjective. The non-quantifiable, non-reproducible, non-falsifiable, cognitive dissonance. Not open to external critique, guarded from objective impartial inquiry, mental-gymnastics.

You can pretty much claim anything and indeed rationalise it, in your own little bubble, using the subjective. It's funny how neuroscience can use a completely different model, a peer-reviewed, objective analysis of the basis of human cognition and output, through the study of neurochemistry and neurobiology. And come up with a completely diifferent conclusion to yours.

For example, Epileptics on average are more prone to "religious and spiritual experiences" than non-epileptics, due to the mis-firing in their temporal lobes. They may, no doubt rationalise their "experiences" just like you do, full with all the mystical trappings and supernatural wizadry. Thing is it's a little bit more mundane and grounded in naturalism not supernaturalism, far less fanciful. The misunderstanding is yours, my friend. Of reality.

As an aside though, it only takes a rational creature to understand that the universe cannot have formed itself. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

A gap in understanding, a chance at dressing up mere conjecture. In there, like flies on ****, are the religious among us.

philologos

marco_polo wrote: »

So you would not consider Steven Hawking to be a rational person then?

Stephen Hawking as far as I know doesn't say as a part of science, that God is ruled out of the equation. Speaking of Stephen Hawking, hope he recovers from hospital soon.

Botany Bay: I'm not epileptic, so you'd need to come up with a better explanation for my situation

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Speaking of Stephen Hawking, hope he recovers from hospital soon.

Assuming he doesn't go into cardiac arrest when he spots the crucifix hanging on the wall of his room.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Maybe off topic but I saw your post and I was wondering what you position was on the question of whether everything needs a creator? I'd think its more rational to say that its probably impossible to know the nature of the universe.

I think the teleological argument (Argument from fine tuning and design) is an easier argument to come from than the cosmological argument (Argument from causation). I do think when both come hand in hand that they would describe my beliefs adequately.

I think it is impossible to know objectively. However I think we can indicate for God's existence in discussing the beginnings of life, and of the universe.

If you want to go through the reasoning for yourself, pick up a good philosophy of religion book. (Both atheist and theist sides are discussed)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's certainly based on observation about how the truth that God has revealed to you effects you spiritually, and in your daily life. This is the one thing about Christianity that atheists will forever misunderstand and underestimate until they experience it for themselves.

We have all the same experiences that theists do, we just don't attribute them to god. One example would be a guy in the movie religulous who converted from judaism to christianity. He was told by a catholic to stick a glass out the window and pray for rain. He did and it started to rain. To him that's proof of god but to me it's proof that it quite often rains and nothing more

Jakkass wrote: »

As an aside though, it only takes a rational creature to understand that the universe cannot have formed itself. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

Actually it takes someone who thinks they know a lot more about the universe than they do. When you say it had to be god you're saying that you know enough about the universe based on a 2000 year old book to eliminate all other possibilities, even the ones that human beings have yet to begin to understand. The overwhelming majority of the brightest minds in the world say that they don't know how the universe came into being and they are working on answering the question. But you're not because you have your answer. Do you know something they don't?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I think we can indicate for God's existence in discussing the beginnings of life, and of the universe.

You can argue with some degree of credibility that something started it all, though whether there was just one thing, or a series of things, that got it all going, and whether or not these one or more things are still around is moot.

But you're in the realm of entirely unsupported personal speculation if you try to link it to a Jewish guy who lived in first century Palestine.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

As an aside though, it only takes a rational creature to understand that the universe cannot have formed itself. The creator cannot be the creation at the same time.

I'm sure you've posted enough on this forum to know that the whole "Universe must have a creator, ergo God" argument has been done many times before, and usually progresses along the lines:
"Everything requires a creator, therefore God must exist"
"So then who created God?"
"God wasn't created, God is eternal"
"So then why can't the universe simply be eternal"
"Because everything requires a creator"
"But then so does God"
"No, God is eternal"
"So everything requires a creator except God"
"Yes"
"So why can't everything require a creator, except the Universe"
... Repeat ad nauseum

It's not a good argument. It's either self-contradictory or requires making assumptions the truth of which nobody can really say.

Better to just leave it at nobody knows for sure how the universe began right now.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Stephen Hawking as far as I know doesn't say as a part of science, that God is ruled out of the equation. Speaking of Stephen Hawking, hope he recovers from hospital soon.

Botany Bay: I'm not epileptic, so you'd need to come up with a better explanation for my situation

He may not rule out god, I don't either but there is a difference between not ruling something out and accepting it as the only possibility

What is your situation?

marco_polo

Jakkass wrote: »

Stephen Hawking as far as I know doesn't say as a part of science, that God is ruled out of the equation. Speaking of Stephen Hawking, hope he recovers from hospital soon.

Botany Bay: I'm not epileptic, so you'd need to come up with a better explanation for my situation

He thinks it entirely plausible that the universe came from nothing, as do many others.

Anyways this is going way off topic, probably my fault too

Owen

Obviously we do eat babies, but only catholic and christian babies. It makes more room for the superior athiest babies instead

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

It's certainly based on observation about how the truth that God has revealed to you effects you spiritually, and in your daily life. This is the one thing about Christianity that atheists will forever misunderstand and underestimate until they experience it for themselves.

Could you give me an example of a spirtual experience powerful enough to make one believe in a god? Maybe even your own greatest experience? If you don't want to tell, an example will do.

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

Stephen Hawking as far as I know doesn't say as a part of science, that God is ruled out of the equation.

Jackass's God = The God as described by the bible? A sky god with many similarities to Gods of other religions? The entity that directly creatly humans and killed and punished them just as quick?


Stephen Hawking's God = Anything from advanced civilizations to variety of consciousness based ideas, a prime mover..an unknown force.

Einstein mentioned God a lot too..it's tiring to have to keep explaining what they (scientists) actually mean.

Dades

Overblood wrote:

Could you give me an example of a spirtual experience powerful enough to make one believe in a god? Maybe even your own greatest experience? If you don't want to tell, an example will do.

Jakkass, I'd prefer you didn't humour Overblood's question in this thread, thanks.

That way madness lies.

philologos

stevejazzx: Without getting too much into it. Stephen Hawking has attended church, and no doubt he could be more open minded on the subject than most of the people in this forum.

Overblood, I may return to deal with this later.