[split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2014, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 07:27 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 05:42 AM)JimFit Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:42 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Welcome jimfit!


really? and how do you know that the mythical JC said any of that since he never penned a single word, and no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him...lets see how much you know about your own faith...don't be scared, I am here to help you.

Jump into the pool, I am here to lead you to the light.

I don't know any serious Historian that denies Jesus Christ Historicy.
I suggest you read this.

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/

and watch these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

I know academic Historians are wrong and you are right! And you think you are the light...

and I suggest you take some classes. I have a degree in religious studies, specializing in the Christian myth. Vast majority of religious and biblical scholars freely admit the bible is largely a parable. In fact if you remove all of the pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings you wouldn't have enough for a pamphlet. For example, I assume your faith is based on the belief in Christ right? How do you know of Christ? Surely you don't slap on the blind fold of blind faith and just take it for granted. If you do some research, what you will find is, every person who wrote of Christ based it on hearsay, no one, let me say it again slower, NO ONE who writes of Christ knew him. I can break it down for you if you like.


Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) . I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) Galatians - complete third hand heresay.

3) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

4) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

5) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Even the scholars know this. I have taken many, many, many Christian theology courses and the texts and professors will quickly agree that it is largely a parable, put together from allegorical writings meant to send a message. It is the "message we should focus on" and not who actually wrote it. "Belief in a transcendental reality requires the ability to believe in something beyond what we see". Rolleyes Any questions so far? Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 07:14 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 05:42 AM)JimFit Wrote:  I don't know any serious Historian that denies Jesus Christ Historicy.
I suggest you read this.

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/

and watch these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

I know academic Historians are wrong and you are right! And you think you are the light...

and I suggest you take some classes. I have a degree in religious studies, specializing in the Christian myth. Vast majority of religious and biblical scholars freely admit the bible is largely a parable. In fact if you remove all of the pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings you wouldn't have enough for a pamphlet. For example, I assume your faith is based on the belief in Christ right? How do you know of Christ? Surely you don't slap on the blind fold of blind faith and just take it for granted. What you will find is, every person who wrote of Christ based it on hearsay, no one, let me say it again slower, NO ONE who writes of Christ knew him. I can break it down for you if you like.

Popcorn

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
22-08-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 05:44 AM)JimFit Wrote:  No arguments? How does a Materialist sepperates living from non living?

All life has a metabolism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 07:14 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 05:42 AM)JimFit Wrote:  I don't know any serious Historian that denies Jesus Christ Historicy.
I suggest you read this.

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/

and watch these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

I know academic Historians are wrong and you are right! And you think you are the light...

and I suggest you take some classes. I have a degree in religious studies, specializing in the Christian myth. Vast majority of religious and biblical scholars freely admit the bible is largely a parable. In fact if you remove all of the pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings you wouldn't have enough for a pamphlet. For example, I assume your faith is based on the belief in Christ right? How do you know of Christ? Surely you don't slap on the blind fold of blind faith and just take it for granted. If you do some research, what you will find is, every person who wrote of Christ based it on hearsay, no one, let me say it again slower, NO ONE who writes of Christ knew him. I can break it down for you if you like.


Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) . I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) Galatians - complete third hand heresay.

3) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

4) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

5) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Even the scholars know this. I have taken many, many, many Christian theology courses and the texts and professors will quickly agree that it is largely a parable, put together from allegorical writings meant to send a message. It is the "message we should focus on" and not who actually wrote it. "Belief in a transcendental reality requires the ability to believe in something beyond what we see". Rolleyes Any questions so far? Smartass

Bowing

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinkerbelle's post
22-08-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(21-08-2014 06:06 PM)JimFit Wrote:  If God doesn't exist then the Universe was popped out of Nothingness
That's a poor start. The universe exists. It may have been created by something else (whether or not that be a god) or it may have always existed, perhaps in a different form than it does today. It may also not be a well-formed question to ask what caused the universe to exist and in fact the correct way to think about the start of time in the universe is not as a beginning, but as an "edge" of the universe.

The question of the universe's origin is unanswered, and what we know so far does not give substantial support to the idea of a creator god who itself must have been created, always existed in some form, or has some temporal edge. Adding a creator simply adds an unjustified layer of complexity to our reasoning.

I think Carl Sagan says it well:




(21-08-2014 06:06 PM)JimFit Wrote:  ...assembled itself through Randomness and we are here by pure Luck. The last time i checked my science books Randomness Nothingness and Luck didn't exist as scientific explanations because the Universe is Deterministic Homogeneous and Finite. Physical infinite causes also are out of the table, BVG Theorem actually proved that the Physical Universe had a beginning even if it were quantum fluctuations therefor the cause of the Universe was transcendental. The Fine Tuning of the Universe complements the argument if the transcendental cause was mindless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMpWcf4ee0
Now you are into the realm of questions science can answer. The problem here is not atheism but your incredulity of hundreds of years of careful scientific advancement in our knowledge of cosmology.

(21-08-2014 06:06 PM)JimFit Wrote:  If God doesn't exist objective morals doesn't exist. You will hear atheists say the opposite that morals can exist without God and even without Christ we could reach the same morals. That's wrong and we have an alive paradigm (except USSR). The Atheists Epicurean Philosophers the first atheists (the people that are responsible for modern atheism) one day looked at the sky and said "There are no Gods, lets make our morals based on Nature" AND THEY DID IT! Do you want to know how this ended up? Did they reached the divine word of the Lord Jesus Christ? NOT AT ALL! The Atheists Epicurean Philosophers openly supported slavery, woman abuse, woman inequality, murder, incest, rape, worship of the God Cesar AND EVEN IN THE TIME OF CHRISTIANITY THEY MOCKED THE CHRISTIANS FOR SHOWING MERCY TO THE WEAK BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT MERCY AS A WEAKNESS!!!! They also thought that the Universe is Eternal and said that there is no reason to understand the Universe because it is Eternal and we are mortals!
The most peaceful and tolerant societies today are also the most atheistic. Your facts are incorrect.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
22-08-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
"If God doesn't exist objective morals doesn't exist. You will hear atheists say the opposite that morals can exist without God and even without Christ we could reach the same morals. That's wrong and we have an alive paradigm (except USSR). The Atheists Epicurean Philosophers the first atheists (the people that are responsible for modern atheism) one day looked at the sky and said "There are no Gods, lets make our morals based on Nature" AND THEY DID IT! Do you want to know how this ended up? Did they reached the divine word of the Lord Jesus Christ? NOT AT ALL! The Atheists Epicurean Philosophers openly supported slavery, woman abuse, woman inequality, murder, incest, rape, worship of the God Cesar AND EVEN IN THE TIME OF CHRISTIANITY THEY MOCKED THE CHRISTIANS FOR SHOWING MERCY TO THE WEAK BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT MERCY AS A WEAKNESS!!!! They also thought that the Universe is Eternal and said that there is no reason to understand the Universe because it is Eternal and we are mortals! "

sigh, another misinformed uneducated theist spreading propaganda without a clue on the facts, let me assist you...here is a paper I wrote on this very thing...read...learn...

Moral Theology is the study of how persons live in response to what God has done for them (Mueller 221).

Morality is concerned with human conduct but goes to a deeper level of personhood, such that our conduct is a reflection of who we are, a reflection of our character (Mueller 221).

Ethics can be defined as a discussion of the formation of human conduct… How responsible human beings capable of critical judgment should live using reflection on fundamental issues in description of concrete cases (Mueller 221).

Conscience is the voice of God written in our hearts, in accordance with the second Vatican Council. Natural law is considered one of the major sources of moral theology and answers the question: how do I know what is good or evil? Christians believe that natural law has been a factor in our decisions of what is morally right and wrong, good and evil (Mueller 222 – 227).

“This people who may personally and individually be moral and good people and have no intention of conflict and harm on others often share a Christian theory called the collective guilt “social sin.” (Mueller 257). The depths that theists go to fabricate the conception of sin knows no bounds, here you can be a good person yet you still have “social sin”. John Paul II said that social sins are “collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations or blocks of nations” (Mueller 258). Social sin becomes personal sin of individuals through complicity, indifference, or reluctance of those in a position to exert influence for change who do not do so (Mueller 258).

Catholic social teaching looks to gospel teaching to form the moral foundation the Catholic approach to questions of social justice. And assist the disciple in the ongoing task of reflecting on the challenge of Jesus in the sermon on the Mount and in discerning what it means in a consumer, technological, and globalized society to be poor in spirit and to embrace a sorrowing and the lowly (Mueller 260).


Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits. Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "The idea that actions can only be considered moral if they could be imitated by anyone else and produce good results."

A variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Some believe that religion is necessary as a guide to a moral life. This idea has been with us for nearly 2,000 years. There are various thoughts regarding how this idea has arisen. For example, Greg Epstein suggests that this idea is connected to a concerted effort by theists to question nonreligious ideas: "conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counter strategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists.

Others eschew the idea that religion is required to provide a guide to right and wrong behavior, such as the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other". Some believe that religions provide poor guides to moral behavior.

Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history. Dawkins insists that, since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition. In addition, he argued that since Christians and other religious groups do not acknowledge the binding authority of all parts of their holy texts (e.g., The books of Exodus and Leviticus state that those who work on the Sabbath and those caught performing acts of homosexuality, respectively, were to be put to death.), they are already capable of distinguishing "right" from "wrong." (Boghossian 248).

The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This is absurd as all one has to do is look at Scandinavian countries to see that this largely atheist area enjoys being at the top tier of civilization.

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans, but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy.

Works cited


Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Boghossian, Peter. A Manual for Creating Atheists. Durham: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 08:46 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(21-08-2014 06:27 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:23 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Welcome to the forum...

You made an account to reply to a post from 2012?

And they say Atheists are smarter than theists overall. Drinking Beverage

That ought to give Jim fits. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
oooh also jimfits, speaking of morals...guess what the largest religiosity group in US prisons is? Christians. Now christians make up about 55% of america...guess what the smallest group is? Atheists at .007%...and we make up 35% of america.

Consider

How does your christian morals go again? Laugh out load

Facts, they exist to wave aside the BS rhetoric

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 06:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 05:56 AM)JimFit Wrote:  You are talking to an Orthodox Christian.
Is the orthodox Christian talking to us? Or at us?

Quote:The story of Noah and the boat is a parable, in the story the righteous people built their salvation (the boat) by being righteous and survived death (the water). This story has an impact to Humanity as a whole, everyone saw Noah to bult a boat but instead of helping him they mocked him and continued their orgies, gluttony, egoistical life. These people that were drown in the story couldn't offer anything to progress of Humanity. Even a scientist must obey to some of the Christian morals to be a good Scientist, he must be humble, meek and to sacrifise lots of his personal life into research, the sacrifise of the ego moves to progress.
... Only some of the morals then? Which ones are not essential?

OK, how about God and all his murderous stuff in the old testament - he explictly commands people to kill. Doesn't seem very loving? Consider

No he doesn't, Jesus was clear whoever tried to justified evil actions to God he is not following God but his Ego. Jesus came to restore our relationship with God because the people in the Old Testament lost their way to salvation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 06:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 05:44 AM)JimFit Wrote:  No arguments? How does a Materialist sepperates living from non living?

By structure and function. How do you do it?

Everything breaks down to atoms, atoms have structure therefor even the rocks are alive? If life came from non life then everything around us is alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: