The tyranny of religion

[Kidlicious]

Btw, since I'm on cell phone I can't stop double posting either.

[kentonio]

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.

I don't criticize you for believing it. I criticize you if you demean others for not believing the same thing as you. I certainly criticize you if you decide you need to proclaim a group that includes me is 'immoral'. But I certainly won't criticize you just for believing in something, that's your own decision and one you have every right to.

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.

I have no interest in arguing over the existence of god. If we're going to discuss an atheists stance on morality though (considering yours is based on religion) it's inevitable that my non-belief in god is going to play a part in that discussion. It's not an attack on you, any more than you believing in god would be an attack on me. We believe different things, that's all.

[Kidlicious]

"I don't criticize you for believing it. I criticize you if you demean others for not believing the same thing as you. I certainly criticize you if you decide you need to proclaim a group that includes me is 'immoral'. But I certainly won't criticize you just for believing in something, that's your own decision and one you have every right to."
-kentonio

I said that double-mindedness is immoral. If you don't mind being double-minded then why shouldn't I say you are immoral. You can call me immoral if you like, but it doesn't make much sense to say that I'm immoral for not believing in double-mindedness.

"I have no interest in arguing over the existence of god. If we're going to discuss an atheists stance on morality though (considering yours is based on religion) it's inevitable that my non-belief in god is going to play a part in that discussion. It's not an attack on you, any more than you believing in god would be an attack on me. We believe different things, that's all."

No. You being an atheist has nothing to do with the point. We're arguing over whether or not an atheist could make a sacrifice greater than that of Christ's. If you just want to say you don't believe in Christ fine. It's just a horrible argument.

[kentonio]

I said that double-mindedness is immoral. If you don't mind being double-minded then why shouldn't I say you are immoral. You can call me immoral if you like, but it doesn't make much sense to say that I'm immoral for not believing in double-mindedness.

You still havent explained what double-minded really means. You asked me to explain my side and I did so, so taking that into account, how does that make me double-minded?

No. You being an atheist has nothing to do with the point. We're arguing over whether or not an atheist could make a sacrifice greater than that of Christ's. If you just want to say you don't believe in Christ fine. It's just a horrible argument.

If you're going to understand why an atheist would see that sacrifice without reward as greater than one done in the belief that a reward is coming, then the non-belief in god is completely essential to that position. If I wasn't an atheist I almost certainly wouldn't be able to explain for instance the atheists position (even though obviously its only my own version of that position, I'm sure each persons will be different in some way).

[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.

I explained what double-mindedness is right here. It's when you are claiming that something is better, or good, then you turn around and say that it doesn't matter which is better and then just continue the argument saying that God doesn't actually exist.

[Kidlicious]

You still havent explained what double-minded really means. You asked me to explain my side and I did so, so taking that into account, how does that make me double-minded?



If you're going to understand why an atheist would see that sacrifice without reward as greater than one done in the belief that a reward is coming, then the non-belief in god is completely essential to that position. If I wasn't an atheist I almost certainly wouldn't be able to explain for instance the atheists position (even though obviously its only my own version of that position, I'm sure each persons will be different in some way).

Just because there isn't a reward doesn't make it good. If I went and killed a bunch of people should it be good because there was no reward? No. So why would sacrificing myself be good just because there is no reward?

[kentonio]

I explained what double-mindedness is right here. It's when you are claiming that something is better, or good, then you turn around and say that it doesn't matter which is better and then just continue the argument saying that God doesn't actually exist.

It feels like we're talking at cross purposes a bit, so I'll try and be more clear. There's a difference to me between better (I don't think a child's life is particularly better than mine) and something I think has value. I can make a decision to sacrifice my life for a childs (for the reason I explained earlier) without thinking they are better than me, or that my action is better than someone elses. Its just a personal calculation of what I consider important or of worth.

Does that make more sense?

[Kidlicious]

It feels like we're talking at cross purposes a bit, so I'll try and be more clear. There's a difference to me between better (I don't think a child's life is particularly better than mine) and something I think has value. I can make a decision to sacrifice my life for a childs (for the reason I explained earlier) without thinking they are better than me, or that my action is better than someone elses. Its just a personal calculation of what I consider important or of worth.

Does that make more sense?

Except you're arguing that such a sacrifice would be better than Jesus sacrificing his physical life so that others could have spiritual life through the forgiveness of sins. Such a sacrifice is obviously good. But the sacrifice you are claiming is better isn't better, because you just think it's good, and have no good reason to believe so. In fact, I've pointed out how absurd it is that you, the one who supposedly would be greater than God should be dead, and a child who may or may not be good (we don't know), should be alive.

[kentonio]

Except you're arguing that such a sacrifice would be better than Jesus sacrificing his physical life so that others could have spiritual life through the forgiveness of sins.

Except that 3 days later he comes back to life, because he can do anything he wants right? And if he wanted he could have not been sacrificed in the first place. Or a week later he could just have come back and carried on his physical life as before. So where's the sacrifice there?

Such a sacrifice is obviously good. But the sacrifice you are claiming is better isn't better, because you just think it's good, and have no good reason to believe so. In fact, I've pointed out how absurd it is that you, the one who supposedly would be greater than God should be dead, and a child who may or may not be good (we don't know), should be alive.

Perhaps because I see value in opportunity and you don't? If the child grows up to be a total dick, then yeah that'd suck, but I'd be dead anyway so I wouldn't know anything about it. The last thing I'd know is that I'd given a young life a chance at a long and happy one. Hell, they could get hit by a bus the next day, but those are circumstances completely out of my control, so whats the point in trying to factor them in?

[Kidlicious]

"Except that 3 days later he comes back to life, because he can do anything he wants right? And if he wanted he could have not been sacrificed in the first place. Or a week later he could just have come back and carried on his physical life as before. So where's the sacrifice there?"
-kentonio

It's a sacrifice in the sense sin is a debt that needs to be paid. It's like if you were in line at the store and when it came time for you to pay you didn't have enough money. A rich man in line pays your bill. It's still a sacrifice because your bill is paid all the same.

"Perhaps because I see value in opportunity and you don't? If the child grows up to be a total dick, then yeah that'd suck, but I'd be dead anyway so I wouldn't know anything about it. The last thing I'd know is that I'd given a young life a chance at a long and happy one. Hell, they could get hit by a bus the next day, but those are circumstances completely out of my control, so whats the point in trying to factor them in?"

So you're saying that you have no idea how good or bad your sacrifice would be? I think we're done here.

[kentonio]

It's a sacrifice in the sense sin is a debt that needs to be paid. It's like if you were in line at the store and when it came time for you to pay you didn't have enough money. A rich man in line pays your bill. It's still a sacrifice because your bill is paid all the same.

And that would be a bigger sacrifice to you than if a poor person paid it for you?

So you're saying that you have no idea how good or bad your sacrifice would be? I think we're done here.

I'm saying the value of the sacrifice is its value to me, the only person who can make that choice. not making a choice unless you know every possible permutation or outcome is just prevarication.

[Kidlicious]

"And that would be a bigger sacrifice to you than if a poor person paid it for you?"
-kentonio

The point is my debt is paid, which is good. The outcome is good. If a poor person tried to pay my bill what good would that be? He wouldn't be able to pay his own bill and it's better that he should eat, not me since he is good.

"I'm saying the value of the sacrifice is its value to me, the only person who can make that choice. not making a choice unless you know every possible permutation or outcome is just prevarication."

Then you don't will the good. You just will whatever you will, but you call it good. As I said, supposedly you are good, because you make such a great sacrifice, yet you die, and you leave the outcome to chance. That is not good.

[Kidlicious]

The point is, as I said, it would not be good for God to die, so that his creation should live, if for no other reason, it's not necessary. I don't think anyone says "God didn't actually die, so I won't be a Christian."

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's the problem I have with that, he didn't die, he spent 3 days in a cave.

He did die, on the cross. The soldiers pierced his side and congealed blood came out.

Now, I dont want to diminish his suffering, but it cant compare to the everyday suffering endured by people who actually do die.

But he did die. Crucified. Which is a horrible way to go.

And why does God need a sacrifice? Its a religion based on human sacrifice and cannibalism.

That's what our sins are like for God. We're out of balance and something has to be given up to bring us into balance. What Christ teaches is this is impossible without the sacrifice of the Passover lamb without blemish. That is, a perfect sacrifice to serve for all the sins of men, for all time.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't repent and sin at the same time.

Did I say that? No. I sin and must repent of that sin. Are you asserting that Christians do not sin?