Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 13. (Read 38470 times)

You think that he is petty, arbitrary and evil?

You say the Bible proves otherwise?  Here is just a few things that the Bible says about Him to me:

He created this beautiful world for us to live in. 
He created man and woman so that we could have relationships, even sex was a gift from God.
He cared deeply for His people.  He parted the red sea to help his people escape from slavery from the Egyptians and led the Israelites to the promise land he said He would give them.
He came as a child so He could understand us and feel the same feeling we feel as humans.
He was beaten, rejected, scorned and made fun of just to understand us. (He is still rejected)
He died a horrific death on the cross for our sins, out of great love for us.
He promised to prepare a place for those that accept Him with no more pain, sorrow or suffering.
He gives His Spirit to those that ask Him and His Spirit brings love, joy, peace,patience, gentleness, kindness and self-control
He takes hate from our hearts and puts love and forgiveness there instead.
And last, He will ultimately give Satan his due reward for all the pain and torment he has caused us on this earth.

Do you disregard these things He has done?  Is that really fair to Him?  He has given us far more than we deserve!

You can believe what you like about God.  Your own evidence, the bible, proves otherwise.  I say, thank God that God doesn't exist.  Pun intended.  For someone that petty, arbitrary and evil to exist and be all powerful would truly be a scary situation for humanity to be in. 

I don't believe the Universe is devoid of meaning.

Ok, if the universe is devoid of meaning, then what isn't devoid of meaning?

Stuff matters to me, when it affects me, because I care about me, because I have been trained to care about me, because whenever I care about me I experience pleasure, and whenever I don't care about me then I experience pain. Since the universe affects me, it matters to me, regardless of how chaotic it is; thus, it is meaningful to me (and all other human beings).

I've bolded one of his primary assumptions, and this is generally a key atheist assumption in general.  The Universe is viewed as chaotic and devoid of all meaning outside of our individual opinions, and this is because it is assumed there is no god or Universal consciousness that self-evidently makes everything meaningful.  He has simply chosen to be consistent based upon his assumption in concluding that his survival is meaningless.  If you believe his assumption, you would also reach the same conclusion.

There's nothing at all wrong with wanting to survive.  But if you really think the Universe is inherently meaningless, then you must realize your assumption leads to the conclusion that there's no logical reason why it's better for you or for anything else to survive.  There's no logical reason to do 'good' things for yourself or anyone else, and there's no reason why it wouldn't be just fine to kill yourself.  Under this view, there is no such thing as objective morality, and thus no objective good and bad.  It's all about opinions and that's all it ever could be about.  The fact that you're "wired" to avoid pain doesn't imply it's good to do so. 

The fact that atheists still, on the whole, want good things to happen to themselves and to other people is an often-overlooked leap of faith.  Specifically, it's having faith that 'goodness' not only exists, but that it perpetuates itself.  But again, carrying the assumption that the Universe is inherently meaningless, there's no logical reason to want good things to happen to yourself or others.

Then the question bbecomes, how is someone else duying in his stead a "penalty" for the murderer? And doesn't that make everyone who kills the person in the murdered's stead murderers themselves? They would be killing an innocent person, regardless if it was as a pennance for someone else's sin/crime.


Of course not. I'm of the notion that whoever dealt it, smelt i.. I mean should take the blame and responsibility for it. That's the only fair way of handling it, and the only real way of preventing them from doing it again. Can you imagine if others can be "sacraficed" to attone for a murdere's sin? If I was a murderer with the intent to kill, that would mean I could be TWICE as productive, simply by killing one person and having another one killed for me every time!


Actually, if you're thinking "biology" and "evolution," it's more of a survival of the species, not of the individuals. Survival of the fittest doesn't work if it's just within the species itself. You'd end up with barely anyone left to reproduce. So atheists fully recognize that we as humans survive as a social species, with social responsibilities and such. That whole golden rule thing still applies. But since we can't rely on god's word as absolute, we have to figure out what is moral from our own more logical perspective. That's where weird things like Non-Aggression Principle, Gay rights, and Women's rights comes from (despite society and religion often fighting very hard against it because of their scripture)

I get that.  Would someone dying because they murdered solve the problem? Then two people are dead.  But if there was no penalty for crimes then people would just continue to murder so there needs to be some payment for it.  Are you of the notion that there should be no price paid for crimes committed?  Should we all just be allowed to do whatever we want without any consequences at all?  I would think a true atheist view point would be a "survival of the fittest" mentality so morality is more of a cultural thing and the consequences are a result of what society says should be the penalty for crime instead of a moral code that goes above what the society says is "right and wrong."

Just what the heck. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. How is attempting to pleasure oneself and keep oneself from pain - something all living beings are naturally wired to do - the same as believing in a made-up god? What exactly is your delusion in wanting to survive? I have no idea what the rest of this thread is about, but the randommest post of all is the one smack at the beginning.

Do you actually believe this? Let's say your next door neighbor killed you mom or your child. Would you be ok with someone else taking the death penalty for him, while your neighbor continued to live right next to you, "exhonorated" from his deeds?
This "scapegoating" phenomenon that came out of that time never really made sense to me.


That's not regardless, that still implies that at one point they were necessary. And it really seems silly now. (and that's the nicest way I can put it)


Or we can just agree that murdering people and animals as an offering or for scapegoating was just a stupid idea to begin with, regardless of who came up with it. Now, if God was actually coming down to earth for burgers every couple of months, then yeah, I'd understand.

Hey.  I am not God so I don't understand all the reasons why shed blood was necessary for forgiveness of sins.  I think perhaps it was to show the severity of sin and how it caused pain?  Regardless, that is the price that was to be paid.  Perhaps the eye for an eye or tooth for tooth teaching comes into play?  If someone kills someone then the justice for that crime would be death.  If someone else then came along and offered to stand in for the crime then justice would be served.

Regardless, Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice for us so that animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.  We have the choice to thank Him for that and accept the payment for our sins or we can reject or ignore Him.  I am eternally grateful for this!  It is hard for me to understand how other people, if they really think about it, cannot even see how this could be such a huge gift God has given us.  But if they think it is all fairy-tales and made up and do not believe God even exists I guess then it does not mean anything to them.

I think your time may be a bit off. Jesus was around during the Roman Empire. It fell about 300 or 400 years later, just because empires fall, but the subsequent fallout, combined with extreme religiosity and fanaticism of the new religion's followers (that being Christianity) was what brought on the Dark Ages. Would we have had the Dark Ages without Christianity? I don't know. We may have reverted to some other form of mysticism. But Christianity definitely didn't make things any better.

I am very much like that. But I get fidgety, because there is so much to so, read, learn, and explore in the world, and so little time to do everything. So to me, just "being" sounds really lazy 

That will happen when I start to think that I know everything there is to know about something, and that I don't want to bother learning anything new about it, regardless of what new information someone else may come up with. So... Probably never.

Why would animal sacrifices ever be necessary? At what point in time is paying tribute in someone/something else's blood is OK?

Some people think that a flood in the Black Sea region is the source of the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

The god in the old testament really has a bad temper sometimes.
But at least he promised to not do this again:

So children today do not suffer for the mistakes of the parents?  I am sure the same thing happened then.  Were the kids cast directly into hell for that?  I don't necessarily believe that.  All of us are judged according to what we do though.

Many people today have turned their backs on God.  You can think of Him however you like but I believe He is good, loving, forgiving and cares deeply for all of us.  But at the same time He is God and is to be feared and revered.  There will come a day when He decided to remove His hand and allow the world to suffer again, just like He did with Noah.  If you read the Biblical account the few that feared Him were saved.  It seems wise to be on His side. 

We love to believe in things that give us hope.
We fill that void with whatever we choose to believe in.
Believing in nothing is a belief.  Just as it is when you worship the run.

The Romans were MUCH further developed in their reasoning given their environment, tools, and timing.  Jesus came about after the empire fell. When we hit the dark ages. When illiteracy was rampent. When reason couldn't flourish.

God is inside of YOU. Your ability to reason and apply logic is what makes you human and enables you to look up at night and question things.  Curiosity will drive a man. Content wont.

Makes you think the Romans had the right idea putting him on trial.  Although, personally I don't believe in capital punishment.  Though, I guess since God does then I must be wrong...

And Jesus (if he ever lived) wasn't God anyway of course.  Or his son or whatever.

If the old Testament concept of God were a man and if he were around now, he'd be on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity.  The massacres at Sodom and Gomorrah alone would get him life sentences.

Wow.  And the babies?  What was their sin?  And children?

How bad was the world that God had to flood it?  Seriously?  This is the all powerful God we are talking about and that's the only solution he can come up with?  And really, how bad could the world possibly be?  This is human society we re talking about.  Yes, it is imperfect, but in all recorded history (not the bible) has there ever been a time when everyone deserved to die by drowning?  Or anyone for that matter?  What crime deserves death by drowning to be inflicted?

It's my belief that the reason governments get away with the crimes that they do is because of beliefs like yours in authority.  That any crime, no matter how foul can be justified if the authority is high enough.  

I don't believe there was a flood that engulfed the world.  That it is just a story.  But there are serious moral problems for those who do believe such a story.  And the mental acrobatics they have to do to justify it.