The tyranny of religion

[Kidlicious]

JM

[kentonio]

Such an atheist is certainly double-minded, which makes him inferior morally. Theoretically, if an atheist were godly, then you would have a point. But how can someone reject godliness and still be godly?

What does 'double-minded' even mean? How does being willing to sacrifice yourself for another without any expectation of reward make you double-minded exactly?

[Kidlicious]

What does 'double-minded' even mean? How does being willing to sacrifice yourself for another without any expectation of reward make you double-minded exactly?

For one, such a person may have mental illness, or maybe confused.

If the person has fully thought through such a decision, that's a different matter. But then we have to talk about how someone would come to such a decision. So you tell me.

[kentonio]

For one, such a person may have mental illness, or maybe confused.

Hahahaha, what the actual ****? Presumably a religious person wouldn't have those things, because they know they're not really giving up anything important right?

If the person has fully thought through such a decision, that's a different matter. But then we have to talk about how someone would come to such a decision. So you tell me.

I'm an atheist. I value my life incredibly highly, because I know its the only one I'll ever have and will be my only opportunity to experience the endless wonder and knowledge of the universe. If you tell me I should give up my life because your particular god wants me to, or because a government wants me to, or because you want me to, I'll laugh in your face.

The list of reasons I would willingly give up the most valuable thing I have is incredibly short. There are however some things that I would deem that sacrifice worth making for. The lives of my closest family members. The life of a child. The ability to prevent some major catastrophe maybe.

There isn't a simple answer to the question you're asking. Each person has their own list of things they'd consider most valuable, and things that they couldn't in good conscience allow to happen if they had any way to prevent it. There's a good chance you'd never know what those things are until the situation was actually there and happening, as I imagine any idealized list wouldn't match the reality.

If you're starting out with the assumption that atheists are inherently immoral, then you may as well just stop thinking about it now, as you're already so far off the path that you'll never gain any understanding.

[Kidlicious]

"Hahahaha, what the actual ****? Presumably a religious person wouldn't have those things, because they know they're not really giving up anything important right? "
-ken

We're talking about God, a purely good being. It doesn't really matter that he would personally not lose anything. It only matters that he wills that which is good. For a Christian it's the same. But he will in fact, gain eternal life, but that is because of his goodness, which is the fact that he did not selfishly act.

"I'm an atheist. I value my life incredibly highly, because I know its the only one I'll ever have and will be my only opportunity to experience the endless wonder and knowledge of the universe. If you tell me I should give up my life because your particular god wants me to, or because a government wants me to, or because you want me to, I'll laugh in your face.

The list of reasons I would willingly give up the most valuable thing I have is incredibly short. There are however some things that I would deem that sacrifice worth making for. The lives of my closest family members. The life of a child. The ability to prevent some major catastrophe maybe.

There isn't a simple answer to the question you're asking. Each person has their own list of things they'd consider most valuable, and things that they couldn't in good conscience allow to happen if they had any way to prevent it. There's a good chance you'd never know what those things are until the situation was actually there and happening, as I imagine any idealized list wouldn't match the reality.

If you're starting out with the assumption that atheists are inherently immoral, then you may as well just stop thinking about it now, as you're already so far off the path that you'll never gain any understanding."
-men

So you are saying that your family member or a child is better than you and that you are superior to God because your sacrifice is greater, yet you are now dead. How is that good?

[kentonio]

We're talking about God, a purely good being. It doesn't really matter that he would personally not lose anything. It only matters that he wills that which is good. For a Christian it's the same. But he will in fact, gain eternal life, but that is because of his goodness, which is the fact that he did not selfishly act.

So whatever god does is good just because he's ok. Ok, then..

So you are saying that your family member or a child is better than you and that you are superior to God because your sacrifice is greater, yet you are now dead. How is that good?

Better? It's nothing to do with better, its about people or things that I consider worth spending my life for. In the case of a child, I've already had half my life and had a truly wonderful time experiencing everything I can whereas they have never had that opportunity. I would consider that a worthy sacrifice to allow them the opportunities I have had. Hopefully knowing that someone gave up something precious to give them that chance would cause them to make the most of it too.

As for 'better than god', how could I consider myself better than something I don't believe in? That makes no sense from the perspective of an atheist.

[kentonio]

Can I just ask why you don't use [quote]s btw? It just makes your posts much harder to read.

[Kidlicious]

[QUOTE=kentonio;6417422]Can I just ask why you don't use

s btw? It just makes your posts much harder to read.

Cell phone

[Kidlicious]

"So whatever god does is good just because he's ok. Ok, then.."
-kentonio

God should be the standard for goodness. If you think humans are the standard for goodness then you are saying humans are fine the way they are, and there is no need to criticize them. What purpose is there for criticizing God?

[Kidlicious]

"Better? It's nothing to do with better, its about people or things that I consider worth spending my life for. In the case of a child, I've already had half my life and had a truly wonderful time experiencing everything I can whereas they have never had that opportunity. I would consider that a worthy sacrifice to allow them the opportunities I have had. Hopefully knowing that someone gave up something precious to give them that chance would cause them to make the most of it too."
-kentonio

This is double-mindedness. The sacrifice is only good if the outcome is good, not if the superior person is dead and the inferior person is alive. You were wrong to have sacrificed that which is good for that which is not good.

[Kidlicious]

Jm

[Kidlicious]

"As for 'better than god', how could I consider myself better than something I don't believe in? That makes no sense from the perspective of an atheist."
-kentonio
If you aren't going to assume that he exists, for arguments sake, how can you claim that you could make a sacrifice greater than he?

[kentonio]

God should be the standard for goodness. If you think humans are the standard for goodness then you are saying humans are fine the way they are, and there is no need to criticize them. What purpose is there for criticizing God?

I don't believe such a thing as god exists, so why criticize the non-existent? To me the bible is a book written by men two thousand years ago. Given that the morality of people two thousand years ago was utterly different to today, along with the beliefs, behaviours and issues of the time, why would I think it is better to follow their moral code, rather than one I can craft myself based on the state of the world today and my place in it?

I think our worldviews are so different, that most of the time we don't even really comprehend the basic building blocks of each others morality. For instance you seem to think that humanity has some perfect ideal represented by god that we can never attain. For me there is no perfect state, nor would I want there to be.

[Kidlicious]

I don't believe such a thing as god exists, so why criticize the non-existent? To me the bible is a book written by men two thousand years ago. Given that the morality of people two thousand years ago was utterly different to today, along with the beliefs, behaviours and issues of the time, why would I think it is better to follow their moral code, rather than one I can craft myself based on the state of the world today and my place in it?

I think our worldviews are so different, that most of the time we don't even really comprehend the basic building blocks of each others morality. For instance you seem to think that humanity has some perfect ideal represented by god that we can never attain. For me there is no perfect state, nor would I want there to be.

I'm not suggesting that you believe in their moral code. I'm suggesting that you believe in purity and strive towards it. If that's too much to ask, at least stop criticizing those of us who do.

You seem to have ideals, such as sacrificing for others, so I'm having a conversation about it with you. But now you just want to have a pointless argument over whether God exists or not.

[Kidlicious]

Jm