Atheism is Evil - Page 27 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15159557
@Verv The "Christian" meaning of repent is the same as the normal meaning of repent. You can throw words like "sin" in there, to mean 'wrong', but it's the same. Believing that you get contrition from a "god" is the only difference, and your Christian pride rears its hideously ugly head, yet again. The only difference is your belief.


Many people, of all religious persuasions, watch, or do not watch, porn, according to what they believe it does to them. Christians watch porn, too.

Christianity has viewed human sexuality in a very puritanical manner for a very long time. Sex within a loving relationship is not 'sinful'.

Christians only BELIEVE themselves to be more moral according to their own beliefs. They aren't. More often than not, they are worse, because they don't live by what they believe. They only talk it a lot.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159558
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think you understand my point.

Yes, Christians will seem more moral to other Christians because they are acting in accordance with Christian beliefs about morality.

But a non-Xian rational observer would not see Christians as more more moral than atheists because the non-Xian rational observer is not judging morality according to Christian beliefs and teachings.


I do not think that is necessarily the case. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, plus many Hindus, Buddhists, or generally religionless persons in the East will observe that the Christian desire towards repentance and reconciliation with God is a very big distinction from atheists, and will likewise recognize their views of sexual morality as extremely relevant to how we assess their morality.

Obviously, Christians would be biased towards Christians, and atheists would be biased against Christians, but theists and religionless Asians who are not Christians would likely side with Christians int he overall scope of things.

If yuo do not have extensive interactions with religionless Asians, you may not understand this, but it is the case.
By Pants-of-dog
#15159560
Verv wrote:I do not think that is necessarily the case. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, plus many Hindus, Buddhists, or generally religionless persons in the East will observe that the Christian desire towards repentance and reconciliation with God is a very big distinction from atheists, and will likewise recognize their views of sexual morality as extremely relevant to how we assess their morality.

Obviously, Christians would be biased towards Christians, and atheists would be biased against Christians, but theists and religionless Asians who are not Christians would likely side with Christians int he overall scope of things.

If yuo do not have extensive interactions with religionless Asians, you may not understand this, but it is the case.


No, you do not understand my point.

Anyway, due to this bias, we cannot say that Christians are objectively more moral than atheists.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159562
Godstud wrote:@Verv The "Christian" meaning of repent is the same as the normal meaning of repent. You can throw words like "sin" in there, to mean 'wrong', but it's the same. Believing that you get contrition from a "god" is the only difference, and your Christian pride rears its hideously ugly head, yet again. The only difference is your belief.


Many people, of all religious persuasions, watch, or do not watch, pxrn, according to what they believe it does to them. Christians watch pxrn, too.

Christianity has viewed human sexuality in a very puritanical manner for a very long time. Sex within a loving relationship is not 'sinful'.

Christians only BELIEVE themselves to be more moral according to their own beliefs. They aren't. More often than not, they are worse, because they don't live by what they believe. They only talk it a lot.


(I) Contrition doesn't actually come from God; contrition is what we muster during sincere repentance. You probably have confused contrition with grace.

(II) Why is it considered some ugly, hideous pride that I am showing? Is it "atheist pride!" when people debate against me? I do not understand this accusation. I am just asserting confidently my own position.

(III) Christians who watch pron regularly have an absolutely massive issue that they need to resolve, and it is questionable whether or not they are sincerely repenting. Of course, this is between God and them, and I cannot judge them, but carting this out like you can be a good Christian and a consumer of prawn is wrong.

(IV)It is possible for Christians to have dispensations to have sexual relatinships with fiancees or women they intend to marry if a sexual relationship existed prior to them becoming Christians, but they will be told to abstain from sexual relations if they do not have intentionality to marry, and will be counseled that pursuing sexual relationships again before marriage is wrong.

But generally speaking, sex can only be practiced within marriage.

These are the canon laws and religious practices of Christians, and it is what Christians encourage non-Christians to do, believing that this will lead to their happiness and the potentiality of maybe even one day being Christian.

I think it is not appropriate to act like we are dangling a sword over your head & breathing heat down your back.

Why should you be so offended by Christian canon law & ethics?

You're an adult, you've decided to not be a Christian, why so hurt about this?

(V) Christians believe thesmelves to be moral... Is not an accurate statement.

Christians believe themselves to be sinners.

Chrstians distinguish themselves by believing in the powr of repentance and the reception of grace from God.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159563
Verv wrote:
People who fall short of the glory of God at all, fall short of it completely. And that's everyone.

Wow, what you are describing is truly the mother of all parental disappointment complex. Lets get this straight, God all powerful and all knowing, makes imperfect human but rather than make them worthy... he makes them very flawed... and it is not as if he doesnt "care" about the humans do... not at all, the total opposite, he cares a lot, he cares if you say bad words, if you dont believe in him, if you use the wrong type of material on your clothes, if you eat the wrong type of food if you like someone of the same gender... many many things, he does care... he could have made you worthy... he knows and he is powerful, but despite knowing that you would be a dissapointment and despite supposedly "caring" for what you do... he simply turns around and makes a flawed creation so that he can smite the crap out of people. Cool cool cool.
But the tragedy does not end there, it is far more pittiful because at least if this was your actual parent you would at least know that your parent exist and have a fairly rough idea of what they are expecting of you. This
OK, would you like to arrange a Skype meeting to have a debate about these things?

That is not what I proposed. The truth is I don't really care what you believe and I don't come to this forum to talk about religion. Most of the times i ignore the obvious troll threads. Sometimes they are so blattantly ironic that I cannot resist the urge to reply.

I do not have any kids yet, but if you are struggling to interpret the Bible, you can pick some areas you have issues with, have a debate, post it here, and put it on YouTube.

Don't give me that crap about "interpreting" the bible. This thing was not written by Leonardo davinci in mirror writing and encrypted in AES 256 bit.
Excuse the tautology but it says what it says... and no amount of jewelry and silk and perfumes used to dress the pig will change the fact that it is a fucking pig.
Last edited by XogGyux on 05 Mar 2021 01:03, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159564
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you do not understand my point.

Anyway, due to this bias, we cannot say that Christians are objectively more moral than atheists.


You are actually just wrong by your own criterion.

Rational observers who are not Christians will tend to view the normal Christian as morally superior when they are measuring it through their own moral concepts, because the majority of rational observers who are not Christian have religion, and those who are religionless will likely be Asians, who will tend to side with Christian concepts of chastity and sexual ethics and not that of Western atheists.

Where's the bias?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15159567
Verv wrote:Where's the bias?
:eh: You're kidding, right? You judge everything by your Christian bias, where you feel superior to others(or at least that's the impression you give) as you say such nonsense as "atheists can't repent".

Let's not forget that the thread is "Atheism is Evil", and not "Christianity is Evil". No one was ever attacking your religion, in this thread. People have been explaining that even BY the standards of your religion, Atheists are no more evil than Christians, with the only difference being belief in your deity.

People have only been attacking people who are NOT religious, and doing so on the precepts of their own religion.
By Pants-of-dog
#15159573
Verv wrote:You are actually just wrong by your own criterion.

Rational observers who are not Christians will tend to view the normal Christian as morally superior when they are measuring it through their own moral concepts, because the majority of rational observers who are not Christian have religion, and those who are religionless will likely be Asians, who will tend to side with Christian concepts of chastity and sexual ethics and not that of Western atheists.

Where's the bias?


So these other observers see the Christians as more moral but not for rational reasons but because their biases are more like Christian biases than atheist biases, according to you.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159574
XogGyux wrote:Wow, what you are describing is truly the mother of all parental disappointment complex. Lets get this straight, God all powerful and all knowing, makes imperfect human but rather than make them worthy... he makes them very flawed... and it is not as if he doesnt "care" about the humans do... not at all, the total opposite, he cares a lot, he cares if you say bad words, if you dont believe in him, if you use the wrong type of material on your clothes, if you eat the wrong type of food if you like someone of the same gender... many many things, he does care... he could have made you worthy... he knows and he is powerful, but despite knowing that you would be a dissapointment and despite supposedly "caring" for what you do... he simply turns around and makes a flawed creation so that he can smite the crap out of people. Cool cool cool.


Man actually makes himself imperfect via the exercise of his free will.

What happened was that man fell in the Garden of Eden via choosing to disobey God's law, and this resulted in the physical, mental, and spiritual corruption of man.

So, we are born with inclination to sin, and with minds that have been darkened by desire for sin. To some degree, our free will has been compromised. This really creates a complicated set of circumstances.

But, it is incorrect to view man as flawed, for all man is made in imago dei, the image of God.

You can be like Christ, my friend, and you will one day be a good Christian if you maintain this interest in God! It's truly wonderful.

Now, you should not confuse the Old Covenant ceremonial & purity laws with the Christian teachings. The Old Covenant has passed away. This does not mean that these laws were immoral, but it is silly to think of those laws as not being ceremonial laws. The wearing of cloth or abstaining from certain kinds of meat was done for keeping Israel an independent & differentiated people.

That is not what I proposed. The truth is I don't really care what you believe and I don't come to this forum to talk about religion. Most of the times i ignore the obvious troll threads. Sometimes they are so blattantly ironic that I cannot resist the urge to reply.


Oh, so you are comfortable

yelling at children

but when a man offers to be involved in a debate, you suddenly think it's not such a good idea? :lol:

OK, I kid, I kid, I know that you were not serious about either offer.

But if yuo do want to discuss this, I think that it would be great to put a voice to the name and I think that you can be a terrific Christian someday if you get a chance to really reflect on what you are talking about.

Don't give me that crap about "interpreting" the bible. This thing was not written by Leonardo davinci in mirror writing and encrypted in AES 256 bit.
Excuse the topology but it says what it says... and no amount of jewelry and silk and perfumes used to dress the pig will change the fact that it is a fxcking pig.


You know what is ideally done when you oppose a group?

- Read all of their important texts
- Read what all of their most important thinkers say about these texts
- Read the very best arguments that they have in response to the normal criticisms

Now, you construct your arguments against them in response to the very best arguments made to normal crticiism, and around criticizing the most popular & strongest arguments for their ideology that their best minds put together.

This means that you skip the BS, and now you have your opponent right in the heart of the actual battlefield, and now you can attempt to really try to change their mind.

Of course, we can't always do that.

But it is very clear that you are not even trying to do anything remotely like that.

So, you need to gain some focus, and try to actually debate a Christian on an actual battlefiedl...

What yuo are doing is throwing up a great plenty of arguments that CARM & GotAnswers have dozens of pages on, and stuff that St. Augustine or St. Maximos would have rolled their eyes at if they were brought up.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159577
Godstud wrote::eh: You're kidding, right? You judge everything by your Christian bias, where you feel superior to others(or at least that's the impression you give) as you say such nonsense as "atheists can't repent".

Let's not forget that the thread is "Atheism is Evil", and not "Christianity is Evil". No one was ever attacking your religion, in this thread. People have been explaining that even BY the standards of your religion, Atheists are no more evil than Christians, with the only difference being belief in your deity.

People have only been attacking people who are NOT religious, and doing so on the precepts of their own religion.


(I) Atheists cannot repent in the Christian sense of repenting. Do you see how this is a very relevant distinction for a theist?

(II) So what's Zogguy doing, if not attacking Christianity?

What are you doing, saying

Christians only BELIEVE themselves to be more moral according to their own beliefs. They aren't. More often than not, they are worse, because they don't live by what they believe. They only talk it a lot.



(III) Plus...

Wah-wah-wah, I went to a debate forum and people were attacking my beliefs!
:lol:

The ... Christians had the nerve and the arrogance to insist that their viewpoint was right! :lol:
User avatar
By Verv
#15159579
Pants-of-dog wrote:So these other observers see the Christians as more moral but not for rational reasons but because their biases are more like Christian biases than atheist biases, according to you.


Then what do yuo even mean by rationality?

Are you saying that a rational observer essentially has to not believe in any form of morality?

Who are these rational observers, if not other human beings, who are not part of the Chrsitian versus Western atheist moral debate?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15159580
Verv wrote:Atheists cannot repent in the Christian sense of repenting. Do you see how this is a very relevant distinction for a theist?
I am well aware of your "belief" in this regard, but it doesn't change the fact that an Atheist can repent for a misdeed, etc. You believing "grace" can only be achieved by god is your belief and doesn't change the psychology of this, nor the reality.

Verv wrote:(II) So what's Zogguy doing, if not attacking Christianity?
This in response to your repeated attacks on Atheism in this thread, and your assumptions made about Atheists. If you don't like his responses, then you can stop "damning" Atheists.

Your ideas about sin, are your own, and according to your religious bias. Atheists can tell what is wrong(sinful/evil), and right(good).

This thread isn't about whether Atheists or Christians are right or wrong in what they do or do not believe. You're being a troll, right now. This is about whether your Christian claim that 'Atheism is Evil' is wrong... which it is.

Yes, you are being arrogant in your belief that Atheism is evil. If you don't like that, then change what you're saying. You're the only one being childish, right now, Verv.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159581
Godstud wrote:I am well aware of your "belief" in this regard, but it doesn't change the fact that an Atheist can repent for a misdeed, etc. You believing "grace" can only be achieved by god is your belief and doesn't change the psychology of this, nor the reality.


I will gladly fully concede that people regret things and try to improve themselves.

It's absolutely vital for atheists, too: if they don't repent, they will not be able to fade into black when they die, and will instead fade into a really annoying color, like a 1970's lime green.

This in response to your repeated attacks on Atheism in this thread, and your assumptions made about Atheists. If you don't like his responses, then you can stop "damning" Atheists.


Do you think I created this thread title?

Y
our ideas about sin, are your own, and according to your religious bias. Atheists can tell what is wrong(sinful/evil), and right(good).


... But just curious, how do they tell those two things apart?

I think it'd be near impossible to generalize about what atheists can even believe, and the only thing more impossible is deriving some absolute sense of right and wrong from a world simply composed of matter.

All morality has to just be a matter of practicality, right?

This thread isn't about whether Atheists or Christians are right or wrong in what they do or do not believe. You're being a troll, right now. This is about whether your Christian claim that 'Atheism is Evil' is wrong... which it is.


I have no idea how this is trolling.

I am a Christian persistently defending Chrsitian beliefs.

Yes, you are being arrogant in your belief that Atheism is evil. If you don't like that, then change what you're saying. You're the only one being childish, right now, Verv.


The conscious rejection of God is definitely a wrong thing that results in much evil, but I think saying that atheists are evil is wrong.

They are bearers of Christ, and they may be quite mistaken, but we cannot call them evil.

You haven't been following this thread.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15159583
Verv wrote:... But just curious, how do they tell those two things apart?
That's exceedingly simple. Things that are wrong generally cause harm to people or to society.

Verv wrote:All morality has to just be a matter of practicality, right?
Morality is subjective and is generally practical. It depends more upon society and culture, than religion. Often societies use religion as a tool to enforce rules and laws within said society/culture.

This is why most of the Commandments, for example, are repeated in almost every religion in existence(Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness, etc.).

I don't need to have belief in a deity(religion) to know that stealing, killing, lying, etc., are "wrong". We learn that even if we aren't a part of a religion, simply by growing up in said society/culture.

Verv wrote:The conscious rejection of God is definitely a wrong thing that results in much evil, but I think saying that atheists are evil is wrong.
Rejecting God is not a "wrong thing", unless you view it from Christian arrogance.

Denying the existence of a deity isn't wrong. It is a logical and reasonable conclusion that many people make, considering the contradictions within most religions.

That said, I have often defended religion as NOT being the cause of wars, when people have said as much, knowing that war is caused by the human condition, and that religion can be used as a scapegoat, if you have an agenda.

What is your agenda, Verv?
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159588
Verv wrote:Man actually makes himself imperfect via the exercise of his free will.

This is nonsense. It does not take a genius to conclude that if you leave to inquisitive kids to roam around the house and you tell them, whatever you do, dont check under the bed... that at some point they will in fact check under the bed, especially if you have a small dog that likes to hide there. Frankly I would expect more from an "all-knowing, all-powerful god". :lol:
As far as I am concerned, if the Christian god depicted on the bible were to exist, I bet it is a child of his own species of super powerful beings... because one thing is for sure, the character of god in the bibble is a childish inept entity.
Now, you should not confuse the Old Covenant ceremonial & purity laws with the Christian teachings. The Old Covenant has passed away. This does not mean that these laws were immoral, but it is silly to think of those laws as not being ceremonial laws. The wearing of cloth or abstaining from certain kinds of meat was done for keeping Israel an independent & differentiated people.

So many excuses... This is the old testament... bah, bullshit. The bibble has ~900k words and close to 700k of those words come from the old testament, the new one is not but 20% of the old and it is not like it is a pure divine entity either... Did christ bother about getting rid of slavery? did he concerned himself about making sure that women and men were seen as equal? Please you cannot reconcile your own morality with that which is depicted on the book that your faith is based upon. Watching Christians attempting to explain this is like watching a 2nd-grade kid trying to explain how the dog ate his homework, amusing, but we both know nobody will buy this shit.

Oh, so you are comfortable

yelling at children

Who said anything about yelling? (You did).
I would simply read them what the book says, explain to them what is happening on the described scenes. I don't have to yell at anyone to make a point. I am pretty sure kids won't need me to yell for them to understand that making someone drunk to rape them is wrong, or that murdering your own family and burning them is wrong.
In fact, if you read the bibble without the presumption that god is the good guy, I am sure most people would come to the conclusion that he is a petty bully. For someone of faith... you have to wonder... is the bibble as evil as its "teachings" are really representing the "good god" that you believe exists? Maybe the devil was the one that inspired its creation after all and you are being deceived :knife: . That would be the ultimate irony :lol: I almost want it to be true :lol:

but when a man offers to be involved in a debate, you suddenly think it's not such a good idea? :lol:

Please. This is hilarious.

OK, I kid, I kid, I know that you were not serious about either offer.

You are right, I was not serious, I am not about to destroy a child's innocence by exposing them to the vile "morality" of this book.
But don't kid yourself, my aversion to ruin a child's innocence has nothing to do with the "strengths" of your "arguments".

You know what is ideally done when you oppose a group?

- Read all of their important texts
- Read what all of their most important thinkers say about these texts
- Read the very best arguments that they have in response to the normal criticisms

Now, you construct your arguments against them in response to the very best arguments made to normal crticiism, and around criticizing the most popular & strongest arguments for their ideology that their best minds put together.

This means that you skip the BS, and now you have your opponent right in the heart of the actual battlefield, and now you can attempt to really try to change their mind.

Of course, we can't always do that.

But it is very clear that you are not even trying to do anything remotely like that.

So, you need to gain some focus, and try to actually debate a Christian on an actual battlefiedl...

What yuo are doing is throwing up a great plenty of arguments that CARM & GotAnswers have dozens of pages on, and stuff that St. Augustine or St. Maximos would have rolled their eyes at if they were brought up.

Again, this is not 3d chess that we are talking about. The plain text is disgusting to even read, at this point I couldn't care less about what this schoolar or that anthropologist or this other theologian or that philosopher have to say.
It is like you bringing me a small pebble and telling me it weights 2 tons... I tell you hell no, this tiny pebble that I can hold in my hand is not 2 tons you lunatic and you ask me... well how much does it weight? and I say.. I don't know, maybe 8 grams? and you tell me maybe? so you are not sure? and I say... well im not sure but I think around 8g sounds reasonable. And you tell me... look at you... you don't even know the exact weight of the pebble yet you questioning what I am saying?
Yes!
I have in fact watched thousands of hours of debating religious people is fascinating because it exposes most if not all of the fallacies that people make when thinking. I have probably heard most if not all of the arguments people give... from the morality arguments to the cosmological arguments, the pascal wagers.
Frankly, don't have an appetite for such a thing at this time.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159590
Godstud wrote:That's exceedingly simple. Things that are wrong generally cause harm to people or to society.


People and society is a very convenient thing to reach for from your nice home in Thailand with a whole society of Buddhists and police with guns to protect you, Stud.

Why isn't the rule simply that which benefits me is good, that which harms me is bad, for the overhwelming majority of people already act this way when their intersts come into conflict with society.

Morality is subjective and is generally practical. It depends more upon society and culture, than religion. Often societies use religion as a tool to enforce rules and laws within said society/culture.


So morality does not exist in any objective sense. Morality is just a word for what people call the surface level agreements they have about propriety.

The positivists and their 'Boo!' 'Hurrah!' theory accurately describe how morality works in a world where we only regard matter as real.

This is why most of the Commandments, for example, are repeated in almost every religion in existence(Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness, etc.).

I don't need to have belief in a deity(religion) to know that stealing, killing, lying, etc., are "wrong". We learn that even if we aren't a part of a religion, simply by growing up in said society/culture.


Well, yes, people accept 'Golden Rule' type assertions because they think, oh geez, yeah, I don't want my stuff stolen.

But they throw these out of the window as soon as it is burdensome.

Rejecting God is not a "wrong thing", unless you view it from Christian arrogance.


Rejecting God is not a simply neutral thing, unless you view it from atheist arrogance.

....

These are both stupid sentences unless you are a teenage girl obsessed with ascribing emotionality & baseness to whatever your enemy's are saying.

Denying the existence of a deity isn't wrong. It is a logical and reasonable conclusion that many people make, considering the contradictions within most religions.

That said, I have often defended religion as NOT being the cause of wars, when people have said as much, knowing that war is caused by the human condition, and that religion can be used as a scapegoat, if you have an agenda.

What is your agenda, Verv?


What's my agenda?

I've posted on this forum for 15 years!

I think it should be well established that I am an enthusiastic internet shitposter.

Why you think I got an agenda?
By Pants-of-dog
#15159599
Verv wrote:Then what do yuo even mean by rationality?

Are you saying that a rational observer essentially has to not believe in any form of morality?

Who are these rational observers, if not other human beings, who are not part of the Chrsitian versus Western atheist moral debate?


As ling as we agree that Christians are only morally better if we judge them according to Christian moral standards.

Just like atheists are morally better if we judge them by the moral standards of those atheists.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159604
Pants-of-dog wrote:As ling as we agree that Christians are only morally better if we judge them according to Christian moral standards.

Just like atheists are morally better if we judge them by the moral standards of those atheists.

That is as close to a meaningless statement as anything I can think off though.
NAZIs are morally better if we judge them by NAZI moral standards.
The Azmat people were morally better if we judge them by their own moral standards, and they were cannibals :lol: .
By Pants-of-dog
#15159606
XogGyux wrote:That is as close to a meaningless statement as anything I can think off though.
NAZIs are morally better if we judge them by NAZI moral standards.
The Azmat people were morally better if we judge them by their own moral standards, and they were cannibals :lol: .


I never said the facts are meaningful. I just said they are facts.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159607
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said the facts are meaningful. I just said they are facts.

Just wanted to make sure. We are talking here about monopoly money, it only has value while playing the game.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 37

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]