Åzurε

I don't mind. I'm almost done with my team.

Sure, let me just make my team real quick.

I agree with you with the "good by nature" idea. I'm not saying people are bad, I'm just saying that most of our instincts go against the laws of both God and man. I think that's well accepted (and, of course, I also don't believe there are reasons above self preservation in our lizard brain, which is the most instinctual layer). But I also agree that good is good, no matter what reason is given. However! There are quite a few snippets from the Bible where piousness and faith are apparently required for Heaven, which leads me to believe that, as an atheist, I wouldn't be accepted into Heaven no matter how good or decent I am. What's your opinion on that? And, I guess my overall question is about this topic is this: when comparing similar acts between Christians and atheists, who is the "better person", so to say: The Christian who feels obligated to do it, or the atheist who just wants to do it?

And I really have to chuckle and pat you on the back for your description of the Bible there. Most of it is truly quite mundane and boring, I think we all can agree (along with very long a bizarrely placed family trees of sorts). But ever read Nicholas Sparks? Mundane and trite can sell like hell! ;) Oh, and don't forget to read up on Horus. His story was the basis for the Jesus story, and is essentially plagiarized idea-for-idea.

And there are records of tons of people crucified in Roman times for upsetting the Jews. That was a time where any deviation from the state, or religion, could be used as reason for death. It's really not that surprising, and proves nothing, that one of 'em was named Yeshua. I'm pretty sure if you dig deep enough, you'd find someone who was crucified with the name of Billy Joe-Bob.

Ah, you say that the purpose of Hell isn't to terrorize, but to seek God. However, what about the fact that nowhere in the Bible is "Hell" as we know it written of? I'm no biblical scholar, but from what I can tell, when Satan was banished from Heaven, he descended to Earth, no? And you mention that agape is the most lasting (and presumably, most important) love. So, you're saying that love for God is more important than love for your fellow human being? Understand where I'm coming from... to me, that's like saying one's invisible friend is more important than a friend of flesh and blood. Not to mention I disagree that it's generally "best for everyone involved". Wasn't it out of love for God that Moses' followers were banished to the desert? Wasn't it Abraham that nearly burned his own son (this memory is a bit hazy, so forgive me if I'm wrong).

Anyhow, you say that we atheists can only choose the lesser of two evils. Why is that? If we do the exact same "moral" deed as a Christian, is it not as moral for us because we do it for different purpose? If a Christian didn't believe in God, would they do that exact same moral deed? Don't forget, true morality is based on physical and emotional acts (always has been, even from the Bible days; morality is different from piousness). So, I just don't understand why morality of the same physical/emotional degree is, for an atheist, less moral? Is it because we're not looking to please God, just our fellow human being? And if that's the case, wouldn't you say that the Christians have an exterior motive? Sorry for all the questions, I'm actually quite interested in picking your brain about this topic.

And I disagree with you incredibly on the last paragraph, on someone who knows nothing would do nothing wrong. In fact, I'd be inclined to believe that a person who knows nothing, by the standard of religion and society, would do everything wrong. Standards and traditions are a learned thing, and they evolve, which calls into play the question of "instinctual morality". Are the morals you uphold as a Christian natural? Are the good deeds any person upholds "natural"? We don't know. But if so, we surely wouldn't need the Bible (essentially a book of morality and philosophy of the Christian religion through parables - not a historical document! But that's a different story I think we've covered already.)

Ah, you said it! Moral Code. It been a long belief of mine that morals, while not only being relative, are enforced against people's natural will. For example, a lot of religious folk believe that we atheists can not have morals, so we must be bad people. I think I'm a decent person. But I ask, why? Why do people do good? Is it ingrained in us to do good? I don't think so; if they were, they wouldn't require enforcement, ie, condemnation and consequence. Why does God feel it necessary to punish someone if they don't follow his laws, when religious people believe his laws are absolute and the Only Way? If they were, wouldn't we all agree on them, on an instinctual level? Same with social laws, that use jail and execution as a means to frighten people out of doing certain things (as the way Hell is used to frighten people into God's laws). Could it be that these are nothing more than sets of rules concocted by people that are implanted on us out of complete fear of consequence as opposed to a natural order?

I don't know. I really don't... I believe so, though.

Think about it this way. If you were in an egg, cut off from all life, hurtling through space at an unknown speed in complete blackness, no sense being able to penetrate your contentiousness (EDIT: contentiousness? Try consciousness, haha), from the day you're born to the day you die. How would you know the morals you believe in now are the Truth? Because they're part of the God-given body/brain/spirit you have? But if that's the case, why use negative (and even positive!) reinforcement to make sure you follow them? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Okay, so do you believe that religion itself is infallible? I don't mean the people... I mean the framework.

And murder... the bane of the moral relativist. Personally, I think murder in any way is as close to an absolute moral as we'll get. Even theft, in my opinion, is negotiable (I would steal to feel a starving family, no questions asked). And murder is also somewhat negotiable, since in a kill-or-be-killed situation, it ain't no question at all. Now, premeditated murder is a little different. I don't believe premeditated murder is in our instincts. I think it derives from psychology; that is, psychosis or antisocial personality disorder.

However, I cannot deny them the idea that they may think it right. Just like I can't deny you the thought that religion is right, even though I think both are wrong. Hey, for all I know, religion is caused by a psychological, or even neurological, disorder. I don't know.

The point of relativism is to admit that there is no Truth. Everything is dependent on viewpoint, be it personal fancy or psychological imbalance. It's listed as a type of philosophy, but it's not! It merely states that no philosophy is right, and no philosophy is wrong. It allows you to form your own philosophy, based on what you want to believe, not what others tell you you should believe. It's an add-on to belief, I'd say, that says what you believe is not absolute, not the way it should, or even must, be, like most religions preach. Just because someone's a moral relativist doesn't mean they believe premeditated murder is right, it just means they accept some people may view it as acceptable, and some people do.

Well, it's been my opinion for many, many years now that morals are totally relative. It depends on who's looking, it depends on the culture, the environment. Moral truth is dependent on the person; some cultures may glorify things that other cultures damn, its kind of that simple. Who has the right to say which is correct, if any one is? And don't say religion, because I've yet to see a religion which has followed its own morals to a tee throughout its history (you'll hate me for this, but Catholicism is the prime example here). Actually, in Catholicism, I don't think there is a single Commandment that has remained unbroken, even down to "Thy shalt not worship false Gods before me" (Catholicism makes mini-Gods out of Saints and, and, for example, statistically, more people pray to the Virgin Mary than to Jesus).

I actually just woke up, and my brain is still booting up, so I hope that was at least somewhat coherent. haha

Yeah. Once I either leave or get promoted, I'm recommending to h-staff to not promote someone there again, or give it to either the Japanese Entertainment or Gaming moderator.

Other Entertainment is a deadweight forum. Tried many times to revive the activity there only to end up failing.

Other Entertainment and Other Voting Polls.

Marvelous! Now what?

This is a visitor message to start a conversation. I'm posting this in hopes you will reply.

I would have too. XD

I saw it loooong ago. I have that as my user title to go with my theme, though. Not really a reference to the movie. XD But that was still a good one.

I imitate that face all the time. So it's like...I am your avatar. >:)

I love your avatar, omg. The comic it's from is hilarious.

The Red Green Show.

Do I win?

Well, I do believe we've reached the dénouement of our religion debate. I'd just like to virtually shake your hand and say I'm impressed with your integrity, and how you handled counterpoints. From my point of view, you were the worthiest of opponents, and the discussion/debate was a true pleasure.

Kudos, man.

the comic strip in your link

is

fantastic

haha. coincidence?

Hey.