Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Bells]

I feel this reply is a prime example of preaching by an atheist to a Christian. Not only is she factually wrong on so many issues (about me), but wrong by the rules of the forum as well. So should I report Bells for preaching? NO!
That is why it is a useful discussion point.

My saying that you should own up to your responsibilities instead of relying on God as a crutch is preaching?

Is it incorrect and wrong to expect people to take responsibility for their actions instead of absolving said responsibility and blame by going the God route?

It was when I went to Otago University that I started reading the New Testament, with the idea that jesus can forgive your sins. That seemed to be the thing I really struggled with that year. For I had done things that I had vowed would never cross my lips, so how was I going to confess my sins for it appeared they had to be said. Does the sound have to come out of your mouth when making a confession? But even in the privacy of my own room at University College I barely could muster enough courage to break my own vow in order to ask Jesus for forgiveness, but I did it.

It still does not absolve you from what you had done though.

Oh noes, you had difficulty confessing it in private to your God. The horror. It still does not take away what you did. And the whole Jesus can forgive your sins.. Please. You did it because you were scared of going to what you believe is hell. When you harm someone, when you deliberately do something to cause someone else harm and then 'turn to Jesus for forgiveness', that does not mean you are suddenly innocent or that you are absolved of all responsibility for your crimes. And I think it is the ultimate act of selfishness to 'pray for forgiveness from Jesus' because you are only doing it so you don't go to your version of hell.. You didn't do it because you knew what you did was wrong. You knew it was wrong and you did it anyway. You prayed for forgiveness because you are selfish enough to believe that that is all you needed.

It takes more courage to face the people you harmed and spend your time and effort asking them for forgiveness and doing what you can to repair the damage you caused. Turning to religion is a cop out and a selfish one at that.

I knew it was not considered right but you tested your nerve to overcome fear to do the crime.

And that is the point. You went out of your way to do it.

You knew it was wrong, but you did it anyway because you didn't care about the consequences to anyone you harmed.

After going to University and getting my degree and working the days of crime seemed to a thing of the past. Yet it took 5 years before I could see a police car and not get an adrenalin rush.

You mean you had something else to focus your time and energy on...

As I said I was trying to resolve the issue of sexual sin that drove me to search for God at the age of 36. From then on I have never told lies or stolen anything.

Spare us the details of your sexual sin.

You committed crimes and you feel that the only way you can go to heaven is if you ask Jesus for forgiveness and be good now. It isn't altruistic. It is inherently selfish. You seek recognition and praise for finding God. Too bad the people you harmed don't get the same level of attention to repay or repair the damage you did to their lives, that you have heaped upon your bible.

No I was only ever trying to find which direction I should go. If there was no God I would go criminal, otherwise just become a normal law abiding citizen.

Keep telling yourself that.

So I think you have misunderstood me a bit.

No, I don't think I have.

 

[Robittybob1]

By preying for me you are stating that I'm a bad person worthy of hell and I need yours and your imaginary gods help. I'm not the s**t on your shoe. That's why it is rude, insulting, callous and nasty. and extremely condesending. Think about it.

I’m not a sinner and I don't need saving, and as you are fully aware that I am atheist, how could it not be insulting, to offer a prayer is like mockery in my opinion. To throw in that you will pray is to ignore everything I am. It’s like nothing I said or done even mattered. I know it’s not the end of the world, but it’s rude.

Recently, things have been going quite well in my life. Nothing is perfect, but life is made of ups and downs and at this moment in time there are quite a lot of ups. Some of these are down to chance. Things have just worked out well. But others, I’ve made them happen. I’ve worked hard to make it happen.

Therefore excusing the genuinely well-intentioned and innocent prayers, I now make a point of asking them to not pray for me. The reason I do this is so they will understand where I’m coming from. So they can see why in that situation a non-believer would feel insulted. You now feel insulted, perhaps next time you will think about this before offering prayer.

I would not pray for anything as derogatory as that I was just thinking only of safety in your "work". As I said I like you, so I wouldn't put you down.
Oh I know what you mean given an opportunity some people are praying that you marry the woman or something like that.
I think it was because I like you, that your rebuke hurt me the worst.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

JamesR, this whole excersise is a hypothetical scenario. If atheism was true, then nature would be all in all, and even if that does not, in reality, explain the atheism scenario, let's just go with it, so we can get right into the heart of the psychology of those for whom atheism is true But it is true for some.

If only nature exists, then everything is an expression, or a part of nature. Right?
If within this reality, God is believed in, then belief in God is also part of nature. Right?

Apart from the minor point that an atheist does not necessarily have to believe that the natural world is all there is (although I'd guess that most do), I have no problem with anything you've said here.

Are humans purely natural? If yes then morality is an aspect of nature. But it isn't.
Why are there different levels of morality. Why do some humans have no morals, and some do?

All humans have morals of some kind. Even criminals usually know their actions are immoral according to the usual standards of society (obvious, since otherwise they wouldn't be crimes), but they have various ways to rationalise their behaviour to themselves. Acting morally is a choice. Some people choose not to act morally. But that doesn't mean they don't have morals. Even a drug-dealing crime boss who will shoot a rival dead with little thought will have think that his action is justifiable. His moral system might be very badly calibrated, but it's there.

It is wrong to assert that an atheist can have no real sense of what is good or bad action. Actions have consequences. On the basis of utility alone, we can say that some actions are good and others bad.

No it's not.

Argument by contradiction won't get you very far, Jan. Please try to do better than that.

Murder, rape and eating babies are all morally wrong in part because they are socially limiting. A person who murders others or rapes or eats babies will be ostracised from society. Nobody wants to live with a murderer or rapist or baby killer.

Such a person would also be feared, and would be successful in finding a mate to reproduce.

I'm not so sure. Such a person would most likely spend a significant portion of his life languishing in a prison cell being mates with a guy with tattoos named Bubba.

Who says that murder is wrong? Answer: we all do, as social animals.

Why do we?
It doesn't need to be wrong to survive.

Didn't I already give you one reason why?

Another one is that murder is wrong because we value the lives of individuals. They are part of our society, just as we are.

The idea that morality is handed down to us by a divine being is deeply flawed.

I didn't say that. You should read what I write rather than assume.

I was just making the point, not responding to anything you specifically said. I'm glad we agree on this, then.

No doubt you are aware of the argument first put by Plato in his Euthyphro dialogue. Are actions good and bad because God says they are, or are they good and bad by some independent measure? If you adopt the first position, you rapidly tie yourself in illogical knots.

Vaguely.
They refer to the gods (if my memory serves)?

Essentially, Plato asked the question: are things right and wrong just because God says so, or are they right and wrong independent of God? If they are right and wrong just because God says so, then God could arbitrarily decree that, for example, murder is good and looking after your children is evil. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because it is, then the wrongness of murder exists independently of God's commands, and therefore morality does not derive from God.

 

[Robittybob1]

My saying that you should own up to your responsibilities instead of relying on God as a crutch is preaching?

Is it incorrect and wrong to expect people to take responsibility for their actions instead of absolving said responsibility and blame by going the God route?


It still does not absolve you from what you had done though.

Oh noes, you had difficulty confessing it in private to your God. The horror. It still does not take away what you did. And the whole Jesus can forgive your sins.. Please. You did it because you were scared of going to what you believe is hell. When you harm someone, when you deliberately do something to cause someone else harm and then 'turn to Jesus for forgiveness', that does not mean you are suddenly innocent or that you are absolved of all responsibility for your crimes. And I think it is the ultimate act of selfishness to 'pray for forgiveness from Jesus' because you are only doing it so you don't go to your version of hell.. You didn't do it because you knew what you did was wrong. You knew it was wrong and you did it anyway. You prayed for forgiveness because you are selfish enough to believe that that is all you needed.

It takes more courage to face the people you harmed and spend your time and effort asking them for forgiveness and doing what you can to repair the damage you caused. Turning to religion is a cop out and a selfish one at that.


And that is the point. You went out of your way to do it.

You knew it was wrong, but you did it anyway because you didn't care about the consequences to anyone you harmed.


You mean you had something else to focus your time and energy on...


Spare us the details of your sexual sin.

You committed crimes and you feel that the only way you can go to heaven is if you ask Jesus for forgiveness and be good now. It isn't altruistic. It is inherently selfish. You seek recognition and praise for finding God. Too bad the people you harmed don't get the same level of attention to repay or repair the damage you did to their lives, that you have heaped upon your bible.


Keep telling yourself that.


No, I don't think I have.

I read that and think you are more religious than me. I'm not sure which one mind you but very set in your ways. Well I felt somewhat relieved by asking forgiveness, I was able to overcome the morbid thoughts of Hell. Suicide was no longer the best option. Whether I still have to pay for my sins who knows but many have sinned against me and never repaid. I had to forgive them so others would forgive me, that was the unraveling process I went through. It helped me get over my past.

 

[Bells]

I read that and think you are more religious than me.

I am an atheist Robittybob1.

I'm not sure which one mind you but very set in your ways.

Perhaps now is a good time to stop projecting.

Well I felt somewhat relieved by asking forgiveness,

How nice for you. Too bad the people you harmed never got that relief.

I was able to overcome the morbid thoughts of Hell.

As I said, you asked for forgiveness from Jesus because the thought of Hell scared you.

Suicide was no longer the best option.

Another coward's way out.

Whether I still have to pay for my sins who knows but many have sinned against me and never repaid.

And?

It still does not lessen the crimes you committed.

Tell me, did you ever turn yourself in to the police? Say sorry to those you harmed?

I had to forgive them so others would forgive me, that was the unraveling process I went through. It helped me get over my past.

Again, as I stated above. You did it solely for yourself because you didn't want to go to hell.

 

[Robittybob1]

....
Essentially, Plato asked the question: are things right and wrong just because God says so, or are they right and wrong independent of God? If they are right and wrong just because God says so, then God could arbitrarily decree that, for example, murder is good and looking after your children is evil. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because it is, then the wrongness of murder exists independently of God's commands, and therefore morality does not derive from God.

There may have been a time in human evolution when murdering was considered a good thing to do. There might have been a time like with Chimps that neighbouring groups were there to be fought and murdered if you could get a chance.

So to stop this behaviour did it require some story as dramatic as Moses to change people? What calmed us down?

 

[Robittybob1]

It still does not lessen the crimes you committed.

Tell me, did you ever turn yourself in to the police? Say sorry to those you harmed?


Again, as I stated above. You did it solely for yourself because you didn't want to go to hell.

Not that time no, but on my second conversion I did, I went and remembered all those I had sinned against and asked them to forgive me. Now that was a humbling experience. Most had long forgotten any issue, but I hadn't. No issues were of the nature of the Police to get involved.
Are you a sinless character Bells, and never did a single thing wrong in your whole life? My ex was like that, she did things that I'd consider wrong but they just didn't phase her. What sort of character are you? Are you more perfect than me?

 

[wynn]

Essentially, Plato asked the question: are things right and wrong just because God says so, or are they right and wrong independent of God? If they are right and wrong just because God says so, then God could arbitrarily decree that, for example, murder is good and looking after your children is evil. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because it is, then the wrongness of murder exists independently of God's commands, and therefore morality does not derive from God.

What you're saying applies only in regard to a demigod, but not God.

 

[Robittybob1]

What you're saying applies only in regard to a demigod, but not God.

Bells openly admits she is atheist, but i can't recall james' stand.
But Bells for it wouldn't matter if it was a god or GOD or a demigod, there would be no distinction as there are no Gods!

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

morals plural of mor·al (Noun)
Noun
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

All humans have morals of some kind.

Is that your gut feeling, do you have a solid reason for that assertion?

Even criminals usually know their actions are immoral according to the usual standards of society (obvious, since otherwise they wouldn't be crimes), but they have various ways to rationalise their behaviour to themselves.

If staying out of jail is a moral pursuit, then you may have a point.
But I'm afraid I don't see it like that.

Acting morally is a choice. Some people choose not to act morally. But that doesn't mean they don't have morals. Even a drug-dealing crime boss who will shoot a rival dead with little thought will have think that his action is justifiable. His moral system might be very badly calibrated, but it's there.

Either that, or he know's that he will most probably stay out of jail.

It is wrong to assert that an atheist can have no real sense of what is good or bad action. Actions have consequences. On the basis of utility alone, we can say that some actions are good and others bad.

No it's not.

Argument by contradiction won't get you very far, Jan. Please try to do better than that.

Sorry I thought it would be obvious.

Given my hypothetical scenario, there can be no right or wrong as long as it is natural, and one abides by one's nature. For you to say something is wrong requires you to either contradict, or correct nature. Nature doesn't do contradiction, or correction. It just acts according to laws.
So what is it that acts contrary to nature?

I'm not so sure. Such a person would most likely spend a significant portion of his life languishing in a prison cell being mates with a guy with tattoos named Bubba.

And maybe not.
There are loads of murderers, rapists, nasty people out there, and I know they don't have trouble finding women. Some women, it seems are sexually turned on by these traits, and some women do not like moral, law abiding guys, at least not in the sexual sense.

Are these women immoral, for liking these types of guys?
Or are they acting ''naturally''?

Didn't I already give you one reason why?

Maybe, I can't remember.

Another one is that murder is wrong because we value the lives of individuals. They are part of our society, just as we are.

Not everyone thinks this way, people diagnosed as psychopaths for example.

I was just making the point, not responding to anything you specifically said. I'm glad we agree on this, then.

Essentially, Plato asked the question: are things right and wrong just because God says so, or are they right and wrong independent of God? If they are right and wrong just because God says so, then God could arbitrarily decree that, for example, murder is good and looking after your children is evil. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because it is, then the wrongness of murder exists independently of God's commands, and therefore morality does not derive from God.

Okay.

jan.

 

[wegs]

One last thing, wegs.

When you finally awake from a religious daze, it's perfectly normal to feel baffled by the preposterous things you once believed in. You'll start to take notice of what's in front of you, and then the multitude of people who are still afflicted with self-deception becomes even more baffling, if not frightening. Speaking out can be helpful for atheists and theists alike.

At one time, the term atheist itself was considered an insult. Today, an easy way to discredit an outspoken atheist is to couple it with other derogatory terms such as an atheist fundamentalist, atheist bigot, militant atheist, or another buzz word that is frequently shoved down my throat..."intolerance". The people who throw charges of intolerance are the ones who are the most notable exemplars of intolerance themselves.

Keep in mind that there is no single subject matter that should be excluded from scrutiny. Challenging a belief is not an act of intolerance. You're not violating anyone's rights. People disagree all the time. The "live and let" approach may sound good, but in excess it can be dangerous. Critical inquiry should be encouraged because critical thinking is in necessary in all aspects of life. Atheists are concerned and their concerns shouldn't be discouraged by branding them with religious intolerance. There are things that we should be tolerant of and many things that we should be intolerant of. Their misuse of religious freedom to cloak their own intolerance is something that comes to mind.

20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity

P.S. For your entertainment pleasure...

Authentic Mormon Temple Ceremony!

Christians Behaving Badly

Whew! Glad I found this post again.
Thanks so much, Trooper and for anyone who missed it...thought I'd give it a bump.
Very insightful, especially when it comes to how we should view tolerance vs intolerance.

 

[wynn]

I say it's just adding a layer of complexity that requires additional support, rather than making anything easier, more simplistic, or avoiding the issues previously mentioned.

To be an intermediary one must still have a concept of what the intermediary is, how it intermediates, and who it is intermediating between. So rather than remove the need to form/hold a concept of God, it now requires one to hold a concept of God, concept of Jesus, the relationship between the two, how the intermediary works etc.

Sure. But at the same time, an intermediary between a person and God is someone who makes things easier for the person, so that a part of the burden is lifted from the person's shoulders. That's a useful concept (sic!).

 

[wegs]

Sure. But at the same time, an intermediary between a person and God is someone who makes things easier for the person, so that a part of the burden is lifted from the person's shoulders. That's a useful concept (sic!).

If I found it to be true, it would be a useful concept.

 

[wynn]

If I found it to be true, it would be a useful concept.

Ladders are useful, to get from A to B where we can't walk or climb. But beyond that, they are useless. Some concepts are like ladders: they have their uses, even if those concepts don't seem to be true or are impossible to verify.

Secondly - I think you distrust, dismiss yourself too much to be able to benefit much from any theological or philosophical discussion. It's a very common problem that makes one stuck at a particular level in terms of spirituality/religion.

 

[wegs]

Ladders are useful, to get from A to B where we can't walk or climb. But beyond that, they are useless. Some concepts are like ladders: they have their uses, even if those concepts don't seem to be true or are impossible to verify.

Secondly - I think you distrust, dismiss yourself too much to be able to benefit much from any theological or philosophical discussion. It's a very common problem that makes one stuck at a particular level in terms of spirituality/religion.

I’m not offended by you, wynn. You reached out to me in a kind way through pm over the weekend. I was very appreciative to you. And then, you wish to insult me (over and over) out in the forum. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised; Balerion calls me naïve, and maybe I am.

I don't know what motivates you to insult me out in the open, but you have nothing to offer me.

 

[Aqueous Id]

No doubt you are aware of the argument first put by Plato in his Euthyphro dialogue. Are actions good and bad because God says they are, or are they good and bad by some independent measure? If you adopt the first position, you rapidly tie yourself in illogical knots.

A recurring theme is that fundamentalists adopt as literal truth the Greek writings of unknown barely-literate authors of the New Testament source material (all lost), as opposed to the scholarly Greek work of a few centuries earlier (well enough preserved). Plato, as you note, covers sufficient ethics as to render Christianity obsolete long before it actually emerged. Further, there are enough parallels between the trials of Socrates and Jesus to understand that the early Christians were borrowing from the earlier story. They definitely knew who the Stoics were--Stoics are specifically mentioned in the Bible. The corollary to this is that they actually knew Stoic doctrines (such as the Stoic meaning of Logos, and the reason for personifying Logos in the person of Christ [I have another theory about this, but the end result is the same]), and though there is some passing disparagement of Stoicism, it completely characterizes Jesus in his emulation of Socrates, drinking from the cup as his impending execution for heresy looms closer--and voluntarily, and as a matter of Stoic principles. Jesus is the Jewish Socrates, merged with the (likely Mithraic) powers of a demigod--a huge contradiction (how can a God suffer)--but effective in homogenizing rival cultures under a new banner. No doubt this had a lot to do with the success of early Christianity in the disparate former nations of the Hellenized world between Rome and Northeastern Africa.

The logical inference from what you're saying is that the Bible is unnecessary in teaching ethics, since all the reasoning and moral ethics we need were formulated much better during the Golden Age of Greece. Folks throughout history (esp. Christian Europe) would likely have done just as well reading from The Republic as they would from the Bible. And some did. That is, they wouldn't have done worse, and probably would have done better. Unlike the Bible, with classical ethics we learn the principles of logic and the virtues of seeking truth as a matter of best evidence. Since this is a precursor to embracing science, science becomes a basis for all ethical behavior. This explains why the other Christian religions (other than Fundamentalism) embrace science. Fundamentalism is not looking for best evidence. It's avoiding it. But the rest of Christianity accepts the Stoic principles of virtue, which leads to the value of evidence, and the necessity of science to find and interpret that evidence.

It's this bizarre insistence on the literally interpreted Bible which sets fundamentalism apart from most religions, from science, and from the Stoic value of virtue ("morals"). Stoicism (in moderation--certainly short of suicidal ideation) can probably best be characterized as a set of personal ethics which makes all traditional Christian sense of "morals"--usually in reference to Victorian morals--obsolete.

 

[spidergoat]

There may have been a time in human evolution when murdering was considered a good thing to do. There might have been a time like with Chimps that neighbouring groups were there to be fought and murdered if you could get a chance.

So to stop this behaviour did it require some story as dramatic as Moses to change people? What calmed us down?

Moses himself committed genocide on the Midianites. So, nothing changed except genocide got divine permission.

 

[Robittybob1]

I’m not offended by you, wynn. You reached out to me in a kind way through pm over the weekend. I was very appreciative to you. And then, you wish to insult me (over and over) out in the forum. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised; Balerion calls me naïve, and maybe I am.

I don't know what motivates you to insult me out in the open, but you have nothing to offer me.

I hope you are not saying that because you've studied Google Earth!

When i quoted it it had something about weeds??? "I will never understand people like you who go from yard to yard, telling people how to pull the weeds out of their own gardens, when you should be working to pull the weeds out of your own." I liked the parable concept.

 

[Robittybob1]

Moses himself committed genocide on the Midianites. So, nothing changed except genocide got divine permission.

Wasn't that his successor Joshua?

 

[spidergoat]

Wasn't that his successor Joshua?

Wires crossed on your hotline with God?

Numbers 31:7-18

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba - the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army - the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds - who returned from the battle.

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

So, in other words, kill them all but save the virgins for yourself. That makes Moses a rapist too.