The whole sinning, not accepting Jesus, go to Hell deal. That's about on line, eh? I don't think I've ever wikipedia'd Hell, just what I was taught in Church as a kid and what is common knowledge in the Bible Belt of the U.S. I learned from Church, use to be Christian I suppose you can say, until I began to think for myself. I don't know if I'd teach my kid about religions, I mean I wouldn't teach him about eastern ones so I don't know why Western ones would be any different. I figure that is something for him/her to decide when they have the ability to think about the subject objectively on their own, that seems to be the best way to get the most unbiased opinion you could hope for.Can you tell me what teachings do you have knowledge about. I sure hope, it is better then Wikipedia. But even if you have knowledge, what perspective did you learn it from. e.g we had an atheist here who said she'll introduce their children about major religions and of course atheism and let them make their own minds. Sure, sounds all good huh? But what she obviously didn't care to say was that she will always tell her children, this is Christianity, its all a big pile of hoaxes, stacked on top of each other, screw it all cuz there ain't no God. See you may have knowledge about it, but from what perspective? were you studying it (assuming that you did) for a better understanding in its context or looking to pick out stories that you can find fault with. Best is to go unbiased. That means you give equal weight to all statements your's and ours. This means that when you read the story of Jonah and the fish that swallowed him, you don't laugh your head off but try to see possibilities, rational thoughts, cuz believe me, we are not all idiots, worshipping unicorns here. If you're in it for learning, best open up to at least a level where you give a fair shot to it or else you are wasting our time.
And you guys do seem fairly intelligent. I don't personally care for all the philosophical argumentation, I've always been a very logical person and my profession kind of argues this kind of thought process so anything that doesn't have cold hard facts backing it up sounds like nonsense to me. I'm doing my best to understand yours and everyone else's reasoning here but it is much different than what I'm use to.
Subjective ethics are a problem, but so are ill-concieved and outdated ancient ones. First of all, most of the Nazis didn't give much thought to the good they were doing from a good and evil sense, they had goals and those goals too priority. Being a good person was not on their mind. Same with Stalin, I have a ton of study in Soviet history and Stalin wasn't working for the betterment of man, he was working for the betterment of himself. It wasn't the same moral code or thought process I talk about. I mean even in Christianity there is a ton of stuff that we omit today as if it doesn't exist, but the Bible says to kill homosexuals does it not? At least with my own subjective code I seek not to harm others, that seems already better than any moral code and religion offers from step number 1.Subjective ethics is a problem, isn't it? what is good? define good? in Nazi Germany, it was good to kill a non-Aryan, one who didn't belong to master German race. Most of them had no guilt. If good is just what you perceive it to be, then it is unstable. The Aztec believed it good to have human sacrifices. It was a good in their society. If you had been born in Aztec, to you it would have been perfectly fine or normal to have human sacrifices, cuz that is what you would have been taught and it would not be in conflict of your own conscience. In Hinduism, burning a widow with her husband is considered good, it is called the ritual of "sati". In Islam, one can kill his wife on account of suspicion of her cheating him, without proof, and it would be considered a proud act.
Atheist and nihilist are not synonymous. Unlike religion, you can't categorize all atheist under one philosophical way of thinking or one moral code, it is subjective and up to the person to make decisions for how he thinks he should live life. I decide what goodness is by how I want others to treat me.So don't give me that, I believe in goodness, thing. What goodness? Unless it is defined and unchanging on philosophical bases and not just circumstances, it is not good. Where do you get that? Obviously not atheism, since I know what great morals they have penned down.
Atheism is not a system. It has no morals jotted down. No one speaks for all Atheist. Not Richard Dawkins, not any website, no one. My case against Stalin is simple, he was a human in a position that allowed him to do many things and his moral code was centered around the greatest happiness for everyone. He didn't mind hurting others, obviously, and cared only for himself instead of others. That is deplorable, but in the grand scheme of things there is no force that says "That is wrong". Just me and others like me to say it, and that's enough.Religion is a not just a concept, it is a system, and so is atheism. we have our morals jotted down, our system works on that, it is regardless if I go against it, since it can convict me always. But when stalin butchered millions and razed some 42000 churches to the ground, he never had tinge of a guilt. Why do you think that was? because he was doing something good, It certainly seemed good to him. I mean we are not talking about the guy who kills and then goes to confession. We are talking about the guy, who kills and think he has done right, good, a service to society. But in this case this guy is an atheist. Now please tell me, on what grounds do you have a case against him? That he is killing millions? No, that doesn't matter to him, that is the bad in his world. He doesn't share your definition of good.
Ex atheist like I'm atheist or ex atheist like babies are atheist? Anyways, if you were doing wrong and I thought you were I'd just show you that your actions hurt others. That you wouldn't want this done to you if you were on the other end of the spectrum. Now what is wrong and right? That's subjective, but there are basic tenants, like doing onto others, that everyone can acknowledge and follow if they so wish and it is easy to see that you don't need a bogey man to scare you into being a good person.Please Ken, convince me, lets for a moment think that I am an atheist (I'm a ex-atheistanyway) and I think religious people are a danger to society. I am in power, I'm the head of a state, you are fellow atheist and you think Im doing wrong. CONVINCE ME.
I'm sure you will love this conversation between us. lets play roles. Lets see how you can show me that your definition of good is better then mine. since you think I am wrong. Even if I refuse to agree, you can still show me where the obvious flaw in me lies.
What if you were an atheist who adopted the moral code of Christianity without accepting Jesus? You did everything else that was Christian accept for actually believing in God. Would that not make you a good person?
Yes, I do, for the most part. I slip up sometimes and act like a jerk, but for the most part I try to stay on the right track and at the end of the day I can safely say no one is being affected negatively by my existence. Can you say the same?Why would God condemn you? Good question. Do you consider yourself a good person?
) I think you just made a philosophical exclamation. I have no cold hard facts as to what seems better. Shall we argue on a philosophical basis then?
on these passages.
He can't
.....