A question for atheist

Like logical's and ProfessorPeabody's quotes, your statement contains judgement of non-Christian morals. That's what I find offensive, the judgement by the "good" Christians that I am a less moral person if I don't pray. It's not the existence of God. In fact, I'd be more than happy to pass into heaven when I die. In fact, if God is the all loving. all forgiving entity, I should have no problems, since I am sure that I have adhered more to the Christian teachings in my life than many who wear their Christianity on their sleeve. Just look at you and ProfessorPeabody: Isn't passing judgement against another a sin?

"God’s Judgment of Sin

1You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God’s judgment when you do the same things? 4Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

5But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6He will judge everyone according to what they have done. 7He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. 8But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and instead live lives of wickedness. 9There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on doing what is evil—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile.a 10But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it. 13For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight. 14Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. 16And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secret life."

Yet, our "good" Christians here on this forum have no problem judging the atheists, the moochers, welfare recipients, muslims, blacks, gays, and the list goes on. Do they all go to hell for it? because I don;t see them asking for forgiveness because if they would, they wouldn't pass judgement in the first place.

 

Your opinion is flawed. Maybe back in the 1800's Christians passed judgement on others but not now. In fact they are moving more to forgiveness of sins. Also, passing judgement is a strong term used only to utilize an argument against Christians when dealing with sin. In the Christian Faith all people are sinners. So no judgement against people, just the sin. Athiests on the other hand pass judgement on people, they look at people of faith to be weaker as it pertains to what is known. If intelligence is the standard then I would like to see how atheists stack up against the philosophers who were Christians or Deist.

 

Yes, they do. Just scroll up a bit. You don't even have to look at another thread.

Edit before anybody's calling a strawman on me:
Not all of them and atheists do it too, of course. But modern Christians are not the exception you want them to be.

 

Because sometimes it hurts them when they try to ignore you.

A local business (not a non profit or church owned) required its employees to attend a pre-work meeting daily which consisted of a short christian/patriotic sermon, prayers and the pledge of allegiance as s closing. Atheist who boycotted the meeting were fired for "habitual tardiness". They did eventually file suit, but other than costing the business owner the legal fees to defend himself they have failed to achieve a favorable ruling.

This business is a well loved family business and is a strong community supporter.

My own feelings about them getting crucified (or not as the case is) for these practices is mixed. Would I like to see them torn down and a CVS built on their ashes? No. But I do think the meeting needs to be optional and off the clock.

 

As antb0y said, you just have to look at this thread to see judgement, so my argument is not a strawman. Is ProfessorPeabody saying "you go to hell, I don't" not a judgement against me directly? Is it not questioning directly my moral fabric, making his seem superior?

If it is only the sin, why is it not the sin going to hell, but the sinner? So many conundrums! However, whenever one starts asking pointy questions, one gets no answers.

 

I don't think non-believers generally deny the existence of good and evil. Humans are social animals by evolution. That's why morals are built into our fabric, otherwise social structure would collapse.

Let's look at dogs, for example: They are not Christian, but they know the concept of being good and bad, as it fits into the social network humans have built for them. They have remorse, guilt, responsibility, all traits that are normally associated with "good" in human society. So, do dogs go to people heaven too? Or is there a separate doggy heaven? If the latter was the case, I guess dog owners would mind a lot, because it would mean they would have to live in eternity being separated from their dogs.

 

Nicely summed up....thank you.

 

Bolding above, mine to show total contradiction.

And,the silly idea that atheism is any more than just "no belief in god".

 

True, but a great number of people I have talked to always manage to insert phrases such as "We go to the same church" and "After I drop my kids off at bible class" and they look intently at you for a reaction to the statement as if to say "Is he one of us?"

 

You're right I was not responding to you with an understanding that your morals were questioned. I am not a Christian, though I see the need for Christian morals in a society. Thus, I defend it. I don't like to label myself, but if I had to do so I would choose Deism without a rejection of supernatural revelations. I have studied the bible and people of influence like Jesus. One can find a belief in such a book to be eye opening when dealing with the unknown. I rule nothing out.

The question of sin is about atonement. The sin is a conscious human decision with regard to what is morally right according to Christianity. If you are looking for some answers from Christians you might be looking in the wrong place. Faith can be like a blindfold to questions of concern. Saving humanity from what is morally wrong is the purpose of Christianity. As for going to hell, all someone needs to do is accept they are a sinner and truly accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. I imagine there is truth to doing that, same as for hell. I can't imagine going to the same place as a child molester or a serial killer after this life. Some sins you cannot atone for.

 

Athiests have to deny the existance of good and evil. Otherwise there is a causality conundrum that exists, sense they do not believe in a higher power.

I don't believe in evolution. And, I have my reasons that are beyond the topic of this thread. I would hope that the next life is full of animals, seeing as they are innocent, for the most part, of actions due to the inability to truly understand said actions.

 

I don't get the contradiction here. Athiests do not JUST deny the existance of God. They in fact preach a lack of reasoning for existance. This by itself is a contradiction of existance. In other words it makes no sense to have existance without a reason. A higher power so to speak. So, if you deny a higher power then you deny existance.

 

NO, an atheist is a person who does not believe in gods or a god. THE END.

YOU do not get to decide what every atheist thinks..YOu do not get to change the meaning of words or make up new meanings... YOU do NOT get to speak for every atheist..and to presume you do is to just plain LIE....



It is total and complete ignorance to ASSume that what one atheist may think is what all atheists think....sheep are religious...

 

A God in terms of a person is what you are referring to. I am referring to the existance of a form of thought by a creator. This thinking justifies a reason. If you deny a creator then you deny existance. Excuse me if I find atheism to be a simplistic view. At least Christians recognize something defining form and thought to existance.

 

Ya know, someday IF you quit telling people what they think and mean, you MAY learn something.

Excuse me if I find christians as believers in make believe (as children do), they only recognize what they've been brainwashed to recognize.


YOU may refer to anything you like, it does NOT change the meaning of "atheist".

 

Since atheist are self described soulless animals, if some one kills a atheist, they shouldnt get any more jail time than if they shot a dog. That seems to follow doesnt it?

 

What's the conundrum? I already explained above that dogs know the difference between good and evil. So why could an atheist not know that difference or has to deny it? Please explain that conundrum.

I am however, not sure if the church knows the difference between good and evil, since many horrendous deed have been done in its name, not the least the inquisition.

 

How do you know that dogs are soulless? Please explain.

The truth is that higher vertebrates, including dogs, share about 98% similarity with our DNA. To assume that humans are somewhat superior is another delusion. In fact, I would trust my dog more than many humans, when it comes to social behavior. Yes, she gets on the table to get some food when nobody pays attention, but she would never bite me and is very loyal, not to say loving. This is ore than can be said of many sel-acclaimed Christians.

 

But we also believe you have no soul. So, can we kill you as well? There again, we of course would not, as atheists do not behave like god worshipers and kill people.

Tell me, do you believe in Santa / the tooth fairly / the flying spaghetti monster as well?

 

I can only speak for myself, but I disagree. I do have a concept of good and evil, but it stems from my subjective morality rather than from God.
I believe that killing, stealing or raping is wrong. I believe in the idea of "Do to others as you would have them do to you".
Your morality and mine differ only in details.

 

The conundrum is much more complicated than what is learned. To best express the concept of good and evil you would have to go all the way back to primitive people. They have not yet gone through the learning process that is our society. In primitive people I imagine they made many choices that, though considered to be a widely wrong choice in modern society, was an acceptable one to a primitive person. This acceptance is not without understanding of, why? Let's take for example: If a primitive person was dying and in painful agony, others of the group would have just killed him rather than listen to his crying. For modern people this would be considered an evil act. Primitive people not understanding the concepts of good and evil only act on emotion. The conundrum is, why is there emotion for a dying person? One might consider this a good emotion. And why is there anger for the killing of a person? One might consider this to be an evil emotion. So, even in a primitive group there is, without knowing so, the concept of good and evil. Now, this will inevitably bring a persons wonder why? It would most likely have to be in the animal instinct of nurturing and respecting life. Why do we do that? I believe because we were, programmed so to speak, by an intelligence that understands much more than we do. So, if you are an atheist and deny the existance of a higher power or God then you cannot accept good and evil as principal of existance. That is the conundrum.

People have done horrible things, people wrote the bible, people are to blame for the use of words of the bible, the church is a faith. Faith is inherently innocent.

 

Your example has way too many problems. You assume a primitive person made the decision on emotion, but you have zero evidence of that. You assume that decisions made today on this topic had something to do with what early man thought - but that is also preposterous. We make decisions today based on our best understanding today including our advances in secular law, understanding of life, understanding of individual rights (which the bible does not address), etc. What some Neanderthal thought or felt is irrelevant. The state congress of Oregon did not consider early man when it made its decision on "death with dignity".

Also, note that we today can make arguments for and against these acts. Suggesting that there is one answer that is good and another that is evil is clearly not something we agree upon. .

And, your claim that this all came from God is without any foundation at all.

Faith is NOT an excuse any more than being drunk is an excuse.

 

Foundation? I gave you a foundation of primitive thinking. All it takes is an open mind and a bit of reasoning. Athiests have a limited view point. Once you start with a reasoning process as it pertains to questions of good and evil atheism falls short due to its inability to accept intelligent design. What is a God or higher power? The existance of form and thought, through which the universe is possible. What atheists want is proof, but proof is staring them in the face. Something from nothing is not possible without the presence of a supernatural force of will. Maybe one day humans will prove themselves to be smart enough to understand the existance of the universe, this understanding still won't touch the creation of it all. Check my signature, and, open your mind.

So, do you deny the existance of good and evil? Is it, for you, just the process that society has chosen for labeling acceptable acts? Or, can you look to what we were as primitive people and accept that acts taken by them were pure to their existance?

 

The concepts of good and evil have been developed through evolution through group selection. This leads to cooperation between individuals, making the group stronger than the sum of the individuals. It is the great power of human groups compared to other social animals that they can cooperate in large groups of people not knowing each other.

Naturally, then, traits have evolved that would benefit group selection and traits have been eliminated that hinder it. For example, killing another human is detrimental to the group, and, thus is socially unacceptable. This does not depend on religion. Clearly, there are many people who do not believe in Christ and who still find killing other humans wrong.

 

"Primitive thinking" is not a foundation of our decision making today. We don't go to Neanderthals (or whatever) to decide what is right or wrong.

Humans DID start from back there, but we progressed. And, we do not go back to that primitive thinking.

For example, AFTER the bible our secular experience with government led to concepts such as inalienable rights of individuals. We see that as incredibly important. And, it has NOTHING to do with the bible or any other religion, as religion is about duty, not personal rights.

And, we will continue to progress. We will come to conclusions about torture, about allowing starvation, about rights of health care, about killing people in cold blood for having committed crimes, about abortion. We'll have to figure out how to think about dna modifications to improve size/beauty/gender/healthiness/etc. of children. There is no end to the ethical and moral questions humans still need to answer.

As to your notions about the start of things, you have no evidence at all that our universe came from nothing.

You want to suggest that there was absolutely nothing for an infinitely long period of "time" during which god sat there all by himself contemplating nothing. Why that makes sense to you is baffling to me. You can make all the argument you want about this crazy scenario of yours, but I'm going to point out that you have zero evidence.