Rhaedas

The OP touched on many points that have been discussed before here, but I think the most important one was the opening argument, the one that made a religious belief a requirement.

This is a common theme among theists, that without some higher purpose or plan, their life is worthless. I suppose this comes from the belief system that forces the believer to think of humans as unworthy, sinners, or whatever. And I find it sad that such people have to have a supernatural belief to make them feel their life is worth living, and to keep them on a straight and moral path.

Atheists on the other hand know they have only this life to live, so they should make the best of it, and hopefully make a difference. And despite what the OP says, a person's acts can make an influence past their death. Many have, otherwise there would never be progress.

So while a theist may give up on this "diseased and sinful" world and wait for the eternal promised land, atheists know it's all we have, and even though we won't be around to enjoy the fruits of our labor in the far future, our children will, so we try to fix and improve what we actually have.

I just hate the negativity that religion projects towards the world, I guess you'd call it anti-humanism...you would think that if the messages are based on love and compassion, they wouldn't be so down on humanity as a whole. It sure would make a difference...

Rusting Car Bumper

believe what you want and you let us not believe what we want. Let's then call it even.

DC

Eudaimonist

Maybe so, but it's not the only source of meaning.

Life without God is meaningless, for no matter what we do, we still die, and even the greatest of affects upon the world fade away.

So?

If life in in the present is just a means to a future goal, then you might be right, although this smacks of a problem of infinite regress. If life never has meaning in the present, how does an unreachable future goal give it meaning?

If life in the present can be valuable in itself, and not just as a means to some future goal, or if it is a means to some achievable nearby future goal, then a finite life can have achievable purposes, and therefore meaning.

Personally, I wouldn't wish to live a pointless life.

Neither would I. Nor do I live such a life.

Babylon Sister

More christian logic: I'm a miserable, unworthy sinner because a couple of mythical people in a mythical garden ate a piece of magical fruit given to them by a talking snake.

Oh yeah. Works for me.

premjan

I think this is just a way to rationalize the real shitty parts of life and turn them into a higher purpose.

Gooch's dad

Christianity utterly FAILS to be logical--a human sacrifice to atone for supposed "original sin"? Mon chi chi, you seriously are trying to get us to accept that a f-ing HUMAN SACRIFICE is logical?

And as others have pointed out, if you try to wiggle out of it by claiming that Jesus was actually God, then you have God sacrificing himself to himself to satisfy a law he made up himself. Utterly idiotic.

Not to mention it is also a Docetic heresy, but I doubt you understand that.

premjan

I think Jesus was just a philosopher who made his points in an unorthodox way.

His reason for suffering persecution and giving himself up to crucifixion was to "create a new meme" -- one that valued the underdog, did not fear death, accepted his divinity as a way of escaping the personal feeling of sin and worthlessness, and creating a new form of meaning.

He did a pretty decent job in some ways, though I'm not going to say there haven't been better philosophers, there have been only few who have been as popular.

Steven Carr

'The animal sacrifices were not enough to cleanse the people once and for all, not enough to assuage the guilt of the people before God (even back then they needed faith, see Hebrews 7-9, and Hosea 6) so a perfect sacrifice
was needed to pay the outstanding debt.

Name one way that Christianity is not logical. I shall do my best to answer you, so go ahead.'


In fact, I don't even know what you are talking about. Why do we have to have a human sacrifice to pay off a debt?

Why does God need people to assuage their guilt? What harm does it do him if people work on the Sabbath, or steal pencils from their workplace or lie when their wives ask their husbands if their new hairstyle suits them?

Christianity is often hard to tell from gibberish.

Mageth

Name one way that Christianity is not logical. I shall do my best to answer you, so go ahead.

OK, I'll give a couple of ways based on your own post.

1) Your own opening argument:

For one thing, believing that there is an all-powerful God out there who not only made the universe but cares enough about our fate to become his own atoning sacrifice for us is something that gives life meaning.

NOTE: one could say the same of countless other God-concepts and even other, non-theistic concepts. Meaning is not the sole property of the Christian religion. Meaning does not come from outside us; it comes from inside us.

If there were simply a cosmic force that really didn't give a hoot about us, it would make life as meaningless as if there were no God at all. If there were no God, and we are simply the results of defying physical laws, then what happens after death? Life without God is meaningless, for no matter what we do, we still die, and even the greatest of affects upon the world fade away.

The above is not a logical argument, not a logical base for religion, but an emotional, irrational base, a base primarily of fear. You fear death, you fear meaningless; therefore, you cling to your belief in an external "god" that gives meaning and saves you from death. In other words, your religion is, at its core, an irrational answer to an emotional need. No matter what logic you try to use to justify it, it's still based purely on emotion.

2) The second comes from your criticism of Islam:

No matter how good of muslims they are, they still have the
nagging chance that they will be found wanting on the "scale of justice."

I find this quite ironic because one of the prime tenets of Christianity (for many Christians, anyway) is that no matter how good you are, you (and your goodness) will be found wanting on the "scale of justice."

In Christianity, it is generally held that goodness is not sufficient. The only thing that is sufficient is submission - submission to the "gospel", "accepting" Christ's sacrifice for you. This is based on the illogical concept that the only thing that can save a human from God's "justice" is for a man-god to die. According to many Christians, the most exemplary human ever, if his life was every bit as "righteous" and sin-free as Jesus' alleged life, would be found wanting on the "scale of justice" if he did not accept the man-god's sacrifice. Another way to look at this is that the most heinous, horrible human ever would not be found wanting on the "scale of justice" if he submitted to Christ's sacrifice with his last thought on his deathbed.

That belief (that it's not what you do, but what you believe, that justifies you in the eyes of God), mon chi chi, is illogical. I find more logic, and have more respect, for the belief in Islam that you need to be good to find mercy.

Mageth

Heck, most of the apostles were crucified, one upsidedown.

You should know that the accounts of the apostles' martyrdoms are church traditions with little actual historical support. In other words, this is another bit of illogical argumentation.