Atheology

[Florestan]

My rhetoric was imprecise and overstepped.

Thank you.

Leaving aside Buddhism, with which I am not familiar enough to discuss with any confidence, I will not dispute that the Christian gospels are noble (1). The issue is that the Catholic Church has considered itself the one true representative (2) of god on earth and its moral precepts

(1) In other words, you won't dispute that the Christian religion is noble. Thanks again.

(2) You might be familiar enough with the (Roman) Catholic Church  --- but are you as familiar with the (Eastern) Orthodox Church(es)?

For instance, human slavery has been the blight of my country's history and the Christian authorities at the time taught that it was sanctioned by god and the abolition of slavery would be against god.

With all due respect, sir, your country's history, while certainly interesting and instructive (as is the history of any given country) is hardly a universal yardstick. Are you even remotely familiar with the School of Salamanca (yes, that's exactly what I mean, a city in that evil, dark, Inqusition-led country of Spain  )?

This is an example of the "absolute" morality of the Christian Churches. Of course you will argue that this was a perversion of true Christian morality, what does it matter if there is an ideal absolute morality if a pervasion of the true morality can be declared by church authority?

It does matter a whole lot than you might think; no church authority is greater than Jesus Christ's, a thing that St. Paul taught in no uncertain terms:

Galatians 1:8  (New International Version)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

In the past this situation led to abuses such as forced conversions, suppression of other cultures and religions, bloody wars, prosecution of heretics, etc. Of course they don't do that anymore.

Once again, this is an argument against (fallen) human nature, not against Christianity. (I would argue that humankind not being able to live up to Christian moral and ethical standards is proof enough that they are not of human origin and making, but that's another discussion altogether).

And once again, once again: are you that familiar with the Eastern Orthodox Church(es)? (please, note the plural) as to being able to cite (1) one single case of a heretic having been burned at stake by all of them, or (2) one single bloody war started by all of them for religious reasons?

But recently we've seen the archdiocese of Boston basically go bankrupt and sell large portions of its land holdings to pay settlements to victims of sexual abuse by Catholic Priests. The diocese would shuffle the priests from parish to parish to shield them from prosecution, while they continued to abuse children. This policy of avoiding secular prosecution for sex crimes was not the weakness of individuals, it was administered from the top, all the way to the Pope. Recently we have learned that the same thing has happened in other US states and other countries. We have also learned of unspeakable abuse of unwed mothers (their children taken away from them) in Ireland and other places in convents where they were "reformed" for being "fallen." There is the dehumanization of homosexual people because of their biology. The connecting theme is that theology and the reputation of the church are considered more important than human suffering.

Once again, you cherrypick, and equate, some of the most controversial Roman Catholic Church's official policies with Christianity --- which is wrong.

I, for one (and I call to witness every other Orthodox Christians here on GMG, for that matter), do not acknowledge the Pope as having any special, particular and absolute authority over the Christendom (much less given to him by Jesus Christ himself) --- he's just the Bishop of Rome, and any decree of his which is not officially backed up by the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch all gathered in an ecumenical council is just a particular opinion with no more weight than mine or yours.

That stuff may not be in the gospels, but it is part of the history of Christian churches.

Once again: which "Christian churches" are you talking about? If I said "genocide and crimes against humanity might not be implied by atheism, but they are part of the history of atheist regimes", you'd rightly asked me "which ones?"

[Zeus]

Not sure why there's so much proselytizing going on here... let's discuss Atheism !!

But if we must discuss Christianity, let's discuss how dubious is Christianity's claim to moral authority.

According to Christianity, you will receive eternal salvation if and only if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, yada yada yada.  That means you can (1) kill a hundred people; then (2) convert to Christianity, and then (3) expect to sit at the table with Christ for eternity.

This, obviously, is an extreme perversion of any normal sense of morality.  It makes about as much sense as saying you will live forever in heaven if you only declare your allegiance to Manchester United.  Though of course as a recruiting tool, this makes perfect sense.  One more of the oh-so-many reasons why you'd be a fool not to convert to Christianity.

But this doctrine is evil.  It acts like a get-out-of-jail-free card that green-lights immoral behavior.  We can see an example of its impact in the child sex abuse scandals. Priests can molest children, then repent and renew their commitment to Jesus Christ as their personal savior, then be forgiven, and probably even keep their jobs.  In fact, doctrinally, you more-or-less have to accept the wayward pedophile back into the fold on evidence of sincere repentance.

Frankly, it's pretty sick, but it is also a direct consequence of flawed Christian theology.

Now I know that Christianity is a big cluster of memes – a big jumble of assertions, not all of which make sense, and some of which directly contradict other parts of doctrine.  What this means is that it's easy to "defend" Christianity by pulling up other doctrinal claims which imply that eternal salvation requires more than just accepting Jesus as your personal savior.  Others might argue that it is not physically or spiritually possible to sincerely accept Jesus as your personal savior and then continue to sin (though I personally doubt this, and even if true, this does not rule out the above scenario).  Finally some will retreat and say that we mortals cannot hope understand the unfathomable mystery and infinite love of God. 

Whatever.  The bottom line is that Christianity makes very specific claims that accepting Jesus as your personal savior is the sole requirement for receiving eternal salvation.  Does anyone dispute this?

If not, let's continue.  Any religion that equates conversion to that religion with exemplary moral behavior worthy of eternal salvation is a fundamentally immoral religion.  Does anyone dispute this?

I hesitate before posting this. I am sure that devotees of Christianity will be universal and unwavering in their disagreement.  I certainly don't intend to try to convert anyone.  While I may read replies, I am not promising to respond to them.  In fact, in the interest of time, I will limit my responses.

Anyway, have at it....  More shield pounding and dogma shouting please!

[Zeus]

Source, please.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is a pretty darn central claim of Christianity.  In the US one can see cars with bumperstickers than cite this verse.  No doubt there are other places in the NT that convey similar messages.

This is one of the most ignorant statements ever made about Christianity, period.

I suppose that ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.

Carry on!  More shield pounding and dogma shouting please!  I'll check in once a day or so to check on progress.

And I'll try to respond to thoughtful and interesting replies.  If I'm not smote down first.   

[drogulus]

It actually puts you quite at odds with a whole line of Western philosophical tradition going as far back as Plato, at least in terms of a systematical philosophy --- but as you admittedly have no use for philosophy beyond what you can gather from internet essays and Youtube lectures, I guess it doesn't make much difference to you anyway. 

     That's an odd thing to say. I can't imagine how you arrived at that judgment. It is my use of the tools I derive from philosophy that makes what I write distinctive, identifiably my own thought and not off the shelf as it were.

      For me philosophy isn't a dabble, it's a method. It's to be used or it isn't what it needs to be.

      Not for nothing, but my analysis is not concerned with the evil religion does, when it does. That religion fails its own test is one question, and that it fails my test is another, and that test is epistemological. If you fail that one nothing downstream of that can remedy the defect.

[drogulus]

     If anyone is caught apologizing for insulting my ideas I will take steps. I will complain to management.

Ignorance is in the mind of anyone who can't see, or think, further than his own worldview --- no personal offense meant but the US-only-based-worldview-of-anything-Christianity-and-Bible-Included is as ignorant as it gets.

     It adds to knowledge to achieve ignorance of a lot of waste of time stuff. Atheists discover the pruning process early in life as a rule, when the young mind learns how to declutter to make room for what's to be used. Information processing has at its heart a search for connections and the discarding of stuff disconnected from the web of use. Most of this goes on under the hood but erupts into consciousness on occasion as when your parent or some other authority speaks in that special voice they use to feed you BS. One is putting away childish things without the benefit of an ideology to tell you how. That, if one is fortunate, is a discovery made later, a delightful one in my case.

[JBS]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is a pretty darn central claim of Christianity.  In the US one can see cars with bumperstickers than cite this verse.  No doubt there are other places in the NT that convey similar messages.

I suppose that ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.

Carry on!  More shield pounding and dogma shouting please!  I'll check in once a day or so to check on progress.

And I'll try to respond to thoughtful and interesting replies.  If I'm not smote down first.   

Deathbed conversions are a long tradition in Christianity, but
--conversion is not considered a way to avoid secular punishment. If a murderer converts, he may get into Heaven but will not avoid the death penalty.
--those forms of Christianity that believe in Purgatory think of it as a state in which one is punished/cleansed of sin before actually achieving the state of being known as Heaven
--the idea of original sin means that everyone starts out as not saved, so the murderer converting at the last minute is simply an extreme example of a principle that applies to everyone.

[Christo]

Ignorance is in the mind of anyone who can't see, or think, further than his own worldview

That's all. I dared name this all-to-human deaf- and blindness 'stupidity' and received the corresponding response from who it apparently concerned.  (Actually: all of us, crooked hearts, as we know). 

(Secular fundamentalism is exactly like religious fundamentalism, but without the notion of grace.)

[Florestan]

Here, now and hereby I solemnly authorize the mods to ban me permanently if I ever again posted in a thread not directly related to music or other arts. So help me God, amen!

[Gurn Blanston]

Here, now and hereby I solemnly authorize the mods to ban me permanently if I ever again posted in a thread not directly related to music or other arts. So help me God, amen!

0:)  Well, alright then. Beliefs (and non-beliefs) are strange things: they can take us where wise men fear to tread. Plus they are deeply personal, especially in their relevance to the 'real world'. This thread (destined from the start for disaster) has been illuminating in many ways, not least because it provided a practical demonstration that there are not onlytwo sides in this debate, but that every poster here had his own side, not necessarily congruent with any of those he/she would have considered to be in the same camp. There are as many flavors of belief and non-belief as there are people to taste them.

[mc ukrneal]

Here, now and hereby I solemnly authorize the mods to ban me permanently if I ever again posted in a thread not directly related to music or other arts. So help me God, amen!

I will share a technique that helped me - write the response to the posts and then delete it. Don't post it. Works well for me.

[Christo]

There's no such thing as non-belief.

#fixed #completely agree 

[Karl Henning]

There are as many flavors of belief and non-belief as there are people to taste them.


[/quote]Aye, just so.

[Karl Henning]

(Secular fundamentalism is exactly like religious fundamentalism, but without the notion of grace.)

If I'm sure I own the truth, don't I have the right to be intolerant of others?

[Christo]

I'd I'm sure I own the truth, don't I have the right to be intolerant of others?

No. The truth being exactly that one doesn't 'own' the truth.  0:)

[JBS]

'. This thread (destined from the start for disaster) .

I confess that my only reason to start this thread was to divert this discussion from the Trump thread, where it was threatening to overwhelm the actual thread topic.

[BasilValentine]

Why I'm not a believer:

I was born into a Roman Catholic family. I believed in God from a young age (3 and 1/2) because I saw him, on my first visit to Sacred Heart Church of Pittsburgh. Being confused by the unprecedented grooming I was subjected to — fancy shoes, slicked back hair, a little bow tie — I asked my mother "Why?" She said: "We have to dress up because we're going to God's house." About half way through my first Mass, a beefy old Irish guy, Monsignor Hayes, ascended to the pulpit and began angrily railing at the congregation. It was perfectly obvious by analogy to my own family that, since he was doing the yelling, this must be his house and that, therefore, the man in the pulpit had to be the Almighty Himself. A couple of years later I experienced a version of the department-store-Santa-Claus-epiphany: One Sunday another man, a mild and soft spoken one, ascended to the lectern for the week's sermon. Afterward I turned to my mother and said: "Hey, that's a different guy up there; They can't both be God!" That's when I learned about priests. Shortly thereafter I was sent to a Catholic elementary school for intensive indoctrination. Six months after graduating — I had refused to attend a Catholic High School — I had rejected all of my religious training. The reason I ceased to believe in a supreme being was a simple point of logic. Catholics believe in and omniscient and omnipotent god. I figured out that if humans were created by such a god, then free will is a ludicrous fiction. Faced with this fact there were several options: Manichean dualism, a belief in predestination, or ceasing to believe in the kind of god accepted by mainstream Christian denominations. I chose the latter. Since I was not invested in supernatural beliefs other than the ones I had tentatively accepted under threat of eternal damnation in a lake of fire, rejecting my religious training effectively made me an atheist. Had no one browbeat me from a young age, the idea of a supreme being would never have entered my head, so becoming an unbeliever was for me a return to a natural state.   

[Gurn Blanston]

#fixed #completely agree 

I am not amused. You are merely projecting your own beliefs onto others. That is not the same thing as them actually believing it. I am happy for you to believe anything you want to believe. I find it unfortunate that you appear to be unable to return the respect.

[Karl Henning]

No. The truth being exactly that one doesn't 'own' the truth.  0:)

Verily

[Gurn Blanston]

I confess that my only reason to start this thread was to divert this discussion from the Trump thread, where it was threatening to overwhelm the actual thread topic.

A laudable ambition. There are so many potential disasters there it is hard to be comfortable with them. You have been here long enough to recall this discussion happening many times before. It always has ended the same way, although this particular group of contestants are less inclined to draw blood than some previous ones.

[Karl Henning]

I confess that my only reason to start this thread was to divert this discussion from the Trump thread, where it was threatening to overwhelm the actual thread topic.

That is how I read you.